the critique of pure reason-第29节

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！



me；　but　that　only　by　means　of　a　synthesis。



　　　　The　Principle　of　the　Synthetical　Unity　of　Apperception

　　　　　　　　　is　the　highest　Principle　of　all　exercise　of

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　the　Understanding。　SS　13



　　The　supreme　principle　of　the　possibility　of　all　intuition　in

relation　to　sensibility　was；　according　to　our　transcendental

aesthetic；　that　all　the　manifold　in　intuition　be　subject　to　the　formal

conditions　of　space　and　time。　The　supreme　principle　of　the　possibility

of　it　in　relation　to　the　understanding　is　that　all　the　manifold　in

it　be　subject　to　conditions　of　the　originally　synthetical　unity　or

apperception。*　To　the　former　of　these　two　principles　are　subject　all

the　various　representations　of　intuition；　in　so　far　as　they　are

given　to　us；　to　the　latter；　in　so　far　as　they　must　be　capable　of

conjunction　in　one　consciousness；　for　without　this　nothing　can　be

thought　or　cognized；　because　the　given　representations　would　not

have　in　common　the　act　Of　the　apperception　〃I　think〃　and　therefore

could　not　be　connected　in　one　self…consciousness。



　　*Space　and　time；　and　all　portions　thereof；　are　intuitions；

consequently　are；　with　a　manifold　for　their　content；　single

representations。　（See　the　Transcendental　Aesthetic。）　Consequently；

they　are　not　pure　conceptions；　by　means　of　which　the　same

consciousness　is　found　in　a　great　number　of　representations；　but；　on

the　contrary；　they　are　many　representations　contained　in　one；　the

consciousness　of　which　is；　so　to　speak；　compounded。　The　unity　of

consciousness　is　nevertheless　synthetical　and；　therefore；　primitive。

From　this　peculiar　character　of　consciousness　follow　many　important

consequences。　（See　SS　21。）



　　Understanding　is；　to　speak　generally；　the　faculty　Of　cognitions。

These　consist　in　the　determined　relation　of　given　representation　to　an

object。　But　an　object　is　that；　in　the　conception　of　which　the　manifold

in　a　given　intuition　is　united。　Now　all　union　of　representations

requires　unity　of　consciousness　in　the　synthesis　of　them。

Consequently；　it　is　the　unity　of　consciousness　alone　that

constitutes　the　possibility　of　representations　relating　to　an

object；　and　therefore　of　their　objective　validity；　and　of　their

becoming　cognitions；　and　consequently；　the　possibility　of　the

existence　of　the　understanding　itself。

　　The　first　pure　cognition　of　understanding；　then；　upon　which　is

founded　all　its　other　exercise；　and　which　is　at　the　same　time

perfectly　independent　of　all　conditions　of　mere　sensuous　intuition；　is

the　principle　of　the　original　synthetical　unity　of　apperception。

Thus　the　mere　form　of　external　sensuous　intuition；　namely；　space；

affords　us；　per　se；　no　cognition；　it　merely　contributes　the　manifold

in　a　priori　intuition　to　a　possible　cognition。　But；　in　order　to

cognize　something　in　space　（for　example；　a　line）；　I　must　draw　it；

and　thus　produce　synthetically　a　determined　conjunction　of　the　given

manifold；　so　that　the　unity　of　this　act　is　at　the　same　time　the

unity　of　consciousness　（in　the　conception　of　a　line）；　and　by　this

means　alone　is　an　object　（a　determinate　space）　cognized。　The

synthetical　unity　of　consciousness　is；　therefore；　an　objective

condition　of　all　cognition；　which　I　do　not　merely　require　in　order

to　cognize　an　object；　but　to　which　every　intuition　must　necessarily　be

subject；　in　order　to　become　an　object　for　me；　because　in　any　other

way；　and　without　this　synthesis；　the　manifold　in　intuition　could　not

be　united　in　one　consciousness。

　　This　proposition　is；　as　already　said；　itself　analytical；　although　it

constitutes　the　synthetical　unity；　the　condition　of　all　thought；　for

it　states　nothing　more　than　that　all　my　representations　in　any　given

intuition　must　be　subject　to　the　condition　which　alone　enables　me　to

connect　them；　as　my　representation　with　the　identical　self；　and　so

to　unite　them　synthetically　in　one　apperception；　by　means　of　the

general　expression；　〃I　think。〃

　　But　this　principle　is　not　to　be　regarded　as　a　principle　for　every

possible　understanding；　but　only　for　the　understanding　by　means　of

whose　pure　apperception　in　the　thought　I　am；　no　manifold　content　is

given。　The　understanding　or　mind　which　contained　the　manifold　in

intuition；　in　and　through　the　act　itself　of　its　own

self…consciousness；　in　other　words；　an　understanding　by　and　in　the

representation　of　which　the　objects　of　the　representation　should　at

the　same　time　exist；　would　not　require　a　special　act　of　synthesis　of

the　manifold　as　the　condition　of　the　unity　of　its　consciousness；　an

act　of　which　the　human　understanding；　which　thinks　only　and　cannot

intuite；　has　absolute　need。　But　this　principle　is　the　first

principle　of　all　the　operations　of　our　understanding；　so　that　we

cannot　form　the　least　conception　of　any　other　possible

understanding；　either　of　one　such　as　should　be　itself　intuition；　or

possess　a　sensuous　intuition；　but　with　forms　different　from　those　of

space　and　time。



　　　　　　What　Objective　Unity　of　Self…consciousness　is。　SS　14



　　It　is　by　means　of　the　transcendental　unity　of　apperception　that

all　the　manifold；　given　in　an　intuition　is　united　into　a　conception　of

the　object。　On　this　account　it　is　called　objective；　and　must　be

distinguished　from　the　subjective　unity　of　consciousness；　which　is　a

determination　of　the　internal　sense；　by　means　of　which　the　said

manifold　in　intuition　is　given　empirically　to　be　so　united。　Whether

I　can　be　empirically　conscious　of　the　manifold　as　coexistent　or　as

successive；　depends　upon　circumstances；　or　empirical　conditions。　Hence

the　empirical　unity　of　consciousness　by　means　of　association　of

representations；　itself　relates　to　a　phenomenal　world　and　is　wholly

contingent。　On　the　contrary；　the　pure　form　of　intuition　in　time；

merely　as　an　intuition；　which　contains　a　given　manifold；　is　subject　to

the　original　unity　of　consciousness；　and　that　solely　by　means　of　the

necessary　relation　of　the　manifold　in　intuition　to　the　〃I　think；〃

consequently　by　means　of　the　pure　synthesis　of　the　understanding；

which　lies　a　priori　at　the　foundation　of　all　empirical　synthesis。

The　transcendental　unity　of　apperception　is　alone　objectively　valid；

the　empirical　which　we　do　not　consider　in　this　essay；　and　which　is

merely　a　unity　deduced　from　the　former　under　given　conditions　in

concreto；　possesses　only　subjective　validity。　One　person　connects

the　notion　conveyed　in　a　word　with　one　thing；　another　with　another

thing；　and　the　unity　of　consciousness　in　that　which　is　empirical；

is；　in　relation　to　that　which　is　given　by　experience；　not

necessarily　and　universally　valid。



　　　　　The　Logical　Form　of　all　Judgements　consists　in　the　Objective

　　　　　　　　　　　　Unity　of　Apperception　of　the　Conceptions

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　contained　therein。　SS　15



　　I　could　never　satisfy　myself　with　the　definition　which　logicians

give　of　a　judgement。　It　is；　according　to　them；　the　representation　of　a

relation　between　two　conceptions。　I　shall　not　dwell　here　on　the

faultiness　of　this　definition；　in　that　it　suits　only　for　categorical

and　not　for　hypothetical　or　disjunctive　judgements；　these　latter

containing　a　relation　not　of　conceptions　but　of　judgements　themselves…

a　blunder　from　which　many　evil　results　have　followed。*　It　is　more

important　for　our　present　purpose　to　observe；　that　this　definition

does　not　determine　in　what　the　said　relation　consists。



　　*The　tedious　doctrine　of　the　four　syllogistic　figures　concerns

only　categorical　syllogisms；　and　although　it　is　nothing　more　than　an

artifice　by　surreptitiously　introducing　immediate　conclusions

（consequentiae　immediatae）　among　the　premises　of　a　pure　syllogism；

to　give　ism'　give　rise　to　an　appearance　of　more　modes　of　drawing　a

conclusion　than　that　in　the　first　figure；　the　artifice　would　not

have　had　much　success；　had　not　its　authors　succeeded　in　bringing

categorical　judgements　into　exclusive　respect；　as　those　to　which　all

others　must　be　referred…　a　doctrine；　however；　which；　according　to　SS

5；　is　utterly　false。



　　But　if　I　investigate　more　closely　the　relation　of　given　cognitions

in　every　judgement；　and　distinguish　it；　as　belonging　to　the

understanding；　from　the　relation　which　is　produced　according　to　laws

of　the　reproductive　imagination　（which　has　only　subjective

validity）；　I　find　that　judgement　is　nothing　but　the　mode　of　bringing

given　cognitions　under　the　objective　unit　of　apperception。　This　is

plain　from　our　use　of　the　term　of　relation　is　in　judgements；　in

order　to　distinguish　the　objective　unity　of　given　representations　from

the　subjective　unity。　For　this　term　indicates　the　relation　of　these

representations　to　the　original　apperception；　and　also　their　necessary

unity；　even　although　the　judgement　is　empirical；　therefore　contingent；

as　in　the　judgement：　〃All　bodies　are　heavy。〃　I　do　not　mean　by　this；

that　these　representations　do　necessarily　belong　to　each　other　in

empirical　intuition；　but　that　by　means　of　the　necessary　unity　of

appreciation　they　belong　to　each　other　in　the　synthes