the critique of pure reason-第48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！



From　this　we　perceive　the　possibility　of　cognizing　a　priori　a　law　of

changes…　a　law；　however；　which　concerns　their　form　merely。　We　merely

anticipate　our　own　apprehension；　the　formal　condition　of　which；

inasmuch　as　it　is　itself　to　be　found　in　the　mind　antecedently　to　all

given　phenomena；　must　certainly　be　capable　of　being　cognized　a　priori。

　　Thus；　as　time　contains　the　sensuous　condition　a　priori　of　the

possibility　of　a　continuous　progression　of　that　which　exists　to　that

which　follows　it；　the　understanding；　by　virtue　of　the　unity　of

apperception；　contains　the　condition　a　priori　of　the　possibility　of

a　continuous　determination　of　the　position　in　time　of　all　phenomena；

and　this　by　means　of　the　series　of　causes　and　effects；　the　former　of

which　necessitate　the　sequence　of　the　latter；　and　thereby　render

universally　and　for　all　time；　and　by　consequence；　objectively；　valid

the　empirical　cognition　of　the　relations　of　time。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　C。　THIRD　ANALOGY。



　　　　　　Principle　of　Coexistence；　According　to　the　Law

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　of　Reciprocity　or　Community。



　　　All　substances；　in　so　far　as　they　can　be　perceived　in　space

　　　　at　the　same　time；　exist　in　a　state　of　complete　reciprocity

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　of　action。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。



　　Things　are　coexistent；　when　in　empirical　intuition　the　perception　of

the　one　can　follow　upon　the　perception　of　the　other；　and　vice　versa…

which　cannot　occur　in　the　succession　of　phenomena；　as　we　have　shown　in

the　explanation　of　the　second　principle。　Thus　I　can　perceive　the

moon　and　then　the　earth；　or　conversely；　first　the　earth　and　then　the

moon；　and　for　the　reason　that　my　perceptions　of　these　objects　can

reciprocally　follow　each　other；　I　say；　they　exist　contemporaneously。

Now　coexistence　is　the　existence　of　the　manifold　in　the　same　time。　But

time　itself　is　not　an　object　of　perception；　and　therefore　we　cannot

conclude　from　the　fact　that　things　are　placed　in　the　same　time；　the

other　fact；　that　the　perception　of　these　things　can　follow　each

other　reciprocally。　The　synthesis　of　the　imagination　in　apprehension

would　only　present　to　us　each　of　these　perceptions　as　present　in　the

subject　when　the　other　is　not　present；　and　contrariwise；　but　would　not

show　that　the　objects　are　coexistent；　that　is　to　say；　that；　if　the　one

exists；　the　other　also　exists　in　the　same　time；　and　that　this　is

necessarily　so；　in　order　that　the　perceptions　may　be　capable　of

following　each　other　reciprocally。　It　follows　that　a　conception　of　the

understanding　or　category　of　the　reciprocal　sequence　of　the

determinations　of　phenomena　（existing；　as　they　do；　apart　from　each

other；　and　yet　contemporaneously）；　is　requisite　to　justify　us　in

saying　that　the　reciprocal　succession　of　perceptions　has　its

foundation　in　the　object；　and　to　enable　us　to　represent　coexistence　as

objective。　But　that　relation　of　substances　in　which　the　one　contains

determinations　the　ground　of　which　is　in　the　other　substance；　is　the

relation　of　influence。　And；　when　this　influence　is　reciprocal；　it　is

the　relation　of　community　or　reciprocity。　Consequently　the　coexistence

of　substances　in　space　cannot　be　cognized　in　experience　otherwise　than

under　the　precondition　of　their　reciprocal　action。　This　is　therefore

the　condition　of　the　possibility　of　things　themselves　as　objects　of

experience。

　　Things　are　coexistent；　in　so　far　as　they　exist　in　one　and　the　same

time。　But　how　can　we　know　that　they　exist　in　one　and　the　same　time？

Only　by　observing　that　the　order　in　the　synthesis　of　apprehension　of

the　manifold　is　arbitrary　and　a　matter　of　indifference；　that　is　to

say；　that　it　can　proceed　from　A；　through　B；　C；　D；　to　E；　or

contrariwise　from　E　to　A。　For　if　they　were　successive　in　time　（and

in　the　order；　let　us　suppose；　which　begins　with　A）；　it　is　quite

impossible　for　the　apprehension　in　perception　to　begin　with　E　and　go

backwards　to　A；　inasmuch　as　A　belongs　to　past　time　and；　therefore；

cannot　be　an　object　of　apprehension。

　　Let　us　assume　that　in　a　number　of　substances　considered　as　phenomena

each　is　completely　isolated；　that　is；　that　no　one　acts　upon　another。

Then　I　say　that　the　coexistence　of　these　cannot　be　an　object　of

possible　perception　and　that　the　existence　of　one　cannot；　by　any

mode　of　empirical　synthesis；　lead　us　to　the　existence　of　another。

For　we　imagine　them　in　this　case　to　be　separated　by　a　completely

void　space；　and　thus　perception；　which　proceeds　from　the　one　to　the

other　in　time；　would　indeed　determine　their　existence　by　means　of　a

following　perception；　but　would　be　quite　unable　to　distinguish　whether

the　one　phenomenon　follows　objectively　upon　the　first；　or　is

coexistent　with　it。

　　Besides　the　mere　fact　of　existence；　then；　there　must　be　something　by

means　of　which　A　determines　the　position　of　B　in　time　and；　conversely；

B　the　position　of　A；　because　only　under　this　condition　can

substances　be　empirically　represented　as　existing　contemporaneously。

Now　that　alone　determines　the　position　of　another　thing　in　time

which　is　the　cause　of　it　or　of　its　determinations。　Consequently

every　substance　（inasmuch　as　it　can　have　succession　predicated　of　it

only　in　respect　of　its　determinations）　must　contain　the　causality　of

certain　determinations　in　another　substance；　and　at　the　same　time

the　effects　of　the　causality　of　the　other　in　itself。　That　is　to　say；

substances　must　stand　（mediately　or　immediately）　in　dynamical

community　with　each　other；　if　coexistence　is　to　be　cognized　in　any

possible　experience。　But；　in　regard　to　objects　of　experience；　that

is　absolutely　necessary　without　which　the　experience　of　these

objects　would　itself　be　impossible。　Consequently　it　is　absolutely

necessary　that　all　substances　in　the　world　of　phenomena；　in　so　far

as　they　are　coexistent；　stand　in　a　relation　of　complete　community　of

reciprocal　action　to　each　other。

　　The　word　community　has　in　our　language*　two　meanings；　and　contains

the　two　notions　conveyed　in　the　Latin　communio　and　commercium。　We

employ　it　in　this　place　in　the　latter　sense…　that　of　a　dynamical

community；　without　which　even　the　community　of　place　（communio　spatii）

could　not　be　empirically　cognized。　In　our　experiences　it　is　easy　to

observe　that　it　is　only　the　continuous　influences　in　all　parts　of

space　that　can　conduct　our　senses　from　one　object　to　another；　that　the

light　which　plays　between　our　eyes　and　the　heavenly　bodies　produces

a　mediating　community　between　them　and　us；　and　thereby　evidences　their

coexistence　with　us；　that　we　cannot　empirically　change　our　position

（perceive　this　change）；　unless　the　existence　of　matter　throughout

the　whole　of　space　rendered　possible　the　perception　of　the　positions

we　occupy；　and　that　this　perception　can　prove　the　contemporaneous

existence　of　these　places　only　through　their　reciprocal　influence；　and

thereby　also　the　coexistence　of　even　the　most　remote　objects…　although

in　this　case　the　proof　is　only　mediate。　Without　community；　every

perception　（of　a　phenomenon　in　space）　is　separated　from　every　other

and　isolated；　and　the　chain　of　empirical　representations；　that　is；

of　experience；　must；　with　the　appearance　of　a　new　object；　begin

entirely　de　novo；　without　the　least　connection　with　preceding

representations；　and　without　standing　towards　these　even　in　the

relation　of　time。　My　intention　here　is　by　no　means　to　combat　the

notion　of　empty　space；　for　it　may　exist　where　our　perceptions　cannot

exist；　inasmuch　as　they　cannot　reach　thereto；　and　where；　therefore；　no

empirical　perception　of　coexistence　takes　place。　But　in　this　case　it

is　not　an　object　of　possible　experience。



　　*German。



　　The　following　remarks　may　be　useful　in　the　way　of　explanation。　In

the　mind；　all　phenomena；　as　contents　of　a　possible　experience；　must

exist　in　community　（communio）　of　apperception　or　consciousness；　and　in

so　far　as　it　is　requisite　that　objects　be　represented　as　coexistent

and　connected；　in　so　far　must　they　reciprocally　determine　the　position

in　time　of　each　other　and　thereby　constitute　a　whole。　If　this

subjective　community　is　to　rest　upon　an　objective　basis；　or　to　be

applied　to　substances　as　phenomena；　the　perception　of　one　substance

must　render　possible　the　perception　of　another；　and　conversely。　For

otherwise　succession；　which　is　always　found　in　perceptions　as

apprehensions；　would　be　predicated　of　external　objects；　and　their

representation　of　their　coexistence　be　thus　impossible。　But　this　is

a　reciprocal　influence；　that　is　to　say；　a　real　community

（commercium）　of　substances；　without　which　therefore　the　empirical

relation　of　coexistence　would　be　a　notion　beyond　the　reach　of　our

minds。　By　virtue　of　this　commercium；　phenomena；　in　so　far　as　they

are　apart　from；　and　nevertheless　in　connection　with　each　other；

constitute　a　compositum　reale。　Such　composita　are　possible　in　many

different　ways。　The　three　dynamical　relations　then；　from　which　all

others　spring；　are　those　of　inherence；　consequence；　and　composition。



　　Thes