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

第31节

the critique of pure reason-第31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!




synthetical unity of apperception; which alone the categories contain;

could be applied; for the purpose of determining an object。 Our

sensuous and empirical intuition can alone give them significance

and meaning。

  If; then; we suppose an object of a non…sensuous intuition to be

given we can in that case represent it by all those predicates which

are implied in the presupposition that nothing appertaining to

sensuous intuition belongs to it; for example; that it is not

extended; or in space; that its duration is not time; that in it no

change (the effect of the determinations in time) is to be met with;

and so on。 But it is no proper knowledge if I merely indicate what the

intuition of the object is not; without being able to say what is

contained in it; for I have not shown the possibility of an object

to which my pure conception of understanding could be applicable;

because I have not been able to furnish any intuition corresponding to

it; but am only able to say that our intuition is not valid for it。

But the most important point is this; that to a something of this kind

not one category can be found applicable。 Take; for example; the

conception of substance; that is; something that can exist as subject;

but never as mere predicate; in regard to this conception I am quite

ignorant whether there can really be anything to correspond to such

a determination of thought; if empirical intuition did not afford me

the occasion for its application。 But of this more in the sequel。



     Of the Application of the Categories to Objects of the

                  Senses in general。 SS 20



  The pure conceptions of the understanding apply to objects of

intuition in general; through the understanding alone; whether the

intuition be our own or some other; provided only it be sensuous;

but are; for this very reason; mere forms of thought; by means of

which alone no determined object can be cognized。 The synthesis or

conjunction of the manifold in these conceptions relates; we have

said; only to the unity of apperception; and is for this reason the

ground of the possibility of a priori cognition; in so far as this

cognition is dependent on the understanding。 This synthesis is;

therefore; not merely transcendental; but also purely intellectual。

But because a certain form of sensuous intuition exists in the mind

a priori which rests on the receptivity of the representative

faculty (sensibility); the understanding; as a spontaneity; is able to

determine the internal sense by means of the diversity of given

representations; conformably to the synthetical unity of apperception;

and thus to cogitate the synthetical unity of the apperception of

the manifold of sensuous intuition a priori; as the condition to which

must necessarily be submitted all objects of human intuition。 And in

this manner the categories as mere forms of thought receive

objective reality; that is; application to objects which are given

to us in intuition; but that only as phenomena; for it is only of

phenomena that we are capable of a priori intuition。

  This synthesis of the manifold of sensuous intuition; which is

possible and necessary a priori; may be called figurative (synthesis

speciosa); in contradistinction to that which is cogitated in the mere

category in regard to the manifold of an intuition in general; and

is called connection or conjunction of the understanding (synthesis

intellectualis)。 Both are transcendental; not merely because they

themselves precede a priori all experience; but also because they form

the basis for the possibility of other cognition a priori。

  But the figurative synthesis; when it has relation only to the

originally synthetical unity of apperception; that is to the

transcendental unity cogitated in the categories; must; to be

distinguished from the purely intellectual conjunction; be entitled

the transcendental synthesis of imagination。 Imagination is the

faculty of representing an object even without its presence in

intuition。 Now; as all our intuition is sensuous; imagination; by

reason of the subjective condition under which alone it can give a

corresponding intuition to the conceptions of the understanding;

belongs to sensibility。 But in so far as the synthesis of the

imagination is an act of spontaneity; which is determinative; and not;

like sense; merely determinable; and which is consequently able to

determine sense a priori; according to its form; conformably to the

unity of apperception; in so far is the imagination a faculty of

determining sensibility a priori; and its synthesis of intuitions

according to the categories must be the transcendental synthesis of

the imagination。 It is an operation of the understanding on

sensibility; and the first application of the understanding to objects

of possible intuition; and at the same time the basis for the exercise

of the other functions of that faculty。 As figurative; it is

distinguished from the merely intellectual synthesis; which is

produced by the understanding alone; without the aid of imagination。

Now; in so far as imagination is spontaneity; I sometimes call it also

the productive imagination; and distinguish it from the

reproductive; the synthesis of which is subject entirely to

empirical laws; those of association; namely; and which; therefore;

contributes nothing to the explanation of the possibility of a

priori cognition; and for this reason belongs not to transcendental

philosophy; but to psychology。



  We have now arrived at the proper place for explaining the paradox

which must have struck every one in our exposition of the internal

sense (SS 6); namely… how this sense represents us to our own

consciousness; only as we appear to ourselves; not as we are in

ourselves; because; to wit; we intuite ourselves only as we are

inwardly affected。 Now this appears to be contradictory; inasmuch as

we thus stand in a passive relation to ourselves; and therefore in the

systems of psychology; the internal sense is commonly held to be one

with the faculty of apperception; while we; on the contrary; carefully

distinguish them。

  That which determines the internal sense is the understanding; and

its original power of conjoining the manifold of intuition; that is;

of bringing this under an apperception (upon which rests the

possibility of the understanding itself)。 Now; as the human

understanding is not in itself a faculty of intuition; and is unable

to exercise such a power; in order to conjoin; as it were; the

manifold of its own intuition; the synthesis of understanding is;

considered per se; nothing but the unity of action; of which; as such;

it is self…conscious; even apart from sensibility; by which; moreover;

it is able to determine our internal sense in respect of the

manifold which may be presented to it according to the form of

sensuous intuition。 Thus; under the name of a transcendental synthesis

of imagination; the understanding exercises an activity upon the

passive subject; whose faculty it is; and so we are right in saying

that the internal sense is affected thereby。 Apperception and its

synthetical unity are by no means one and the same with the internal

sense。 The former; as the source of all our synthetical conjunction;

applies; under the name of the categories; to the manifold of

intuition in general; prior to all sensuous intuition of objects。

The internal sense; on the contrary; contains merely the form of

intuition; but without any synthetical conjunction of the manifold

therein; and consequently does not contain any determined intuition;

which is possible only through consciousness of the determination of

the manifold by the transcendental act of the imagination (synthetical

influence of the understanding on the internal sense); which I have

named figurative synthesis。

  This we can indeed always perceive in ourselves。 We cannot

cogitate a geometrical line without drawing it in thought; nor a

circle without describing it; nor represent the three dimensions of

space without drawing three lines from the same point perpendicular to

one another。 We cannot even cogitate time; unless; in drawing a

straight line (which is to serve as the external figurative

representation of time); we fix our attention on the act of the

synthesis of the manifold; whereby we determine successively the

internal sense; and thus attend also to the succession of this

determination。 Motion as an act of the subject (not as a determination

of an object);* consequently the synthesis of the manifold in space;

if we make abstraction of space and attend merely to the act by

which we determine the internal sense according to its form; is that

which produces the conception of succession。 The understanding;

therefore; does by no means find in the internal sense any such

synthesis of the manifold; but produces it; in that it affects this

sense。 At the same time; how 〃I who think〃 is distinct from the 〃I〃

whi

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 1 1

你可能喜欢的