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

第56节

the critique of pure reason-第56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!




  But we are met at the very commencement with an ambiguity; which may

easily occasion great misapprehension。 The understanding; when it

terms an object in a certain relation phenomenon; at the same time

forms out of this relation a representation or notion of an object

in itself; and hence believes that it can form also conceptions of

such objects。 Now as the understanding possesses no other

fundamental conceptions besides the categories; it takes for granted

that an object considered as a thing in itself must be capable of

being thought by means of these pure conceptions; and is thereby led

to hold the perfectly undetermined conception of an intelligible

existence; a something out of the sphere of our sensibility; for a

determinate conception of an existence which we can cognize in some

way or other by means of the understanding。

  If; by the term noumenon; we understand a thing so far as it is

not an object of our sensuous intuition; thus making abstraction of

our mode of intuiting it; this is a noumenon in the negative sense

of the word。 But if we understand by it an object of a non…sensuous

intuition; we in this case assume a peculiar mode of intuition; an

intellectual intuition; to wit; which does not; however; belong to us;

of the very possibility of which we have no notion… and this is a

noumenon in the positive sense。

  The doctrine of sensibility is also the doctrine of noumena in the

negative sense; that is; of things which the understanding is

obliged to cogitate apart from any relation to our mode of

intuition; consequently not as mere phenomena; but as things in

themselves。 But the understanding at the same time comprehends that it

cannot employ its categories for the consideration of things in

themselves; because these possess significance only in relation to the

unity of intuitions in space and time; and that they are competent

to determine this unity by means of general a priori connecting

conceptions only on account of the pure ideality of space and time。

Where this unity of time is not to be met with; as is the case with

noumena; the whole use; indeed the whole meaning of the categories

is entirely lost; for even the possibility of things to correspond

to the categories is in this case incomprehensible。 On this point; I

need only refer the reader to what I have said at the commencement

of the General Remark appended to the foregoing chapter。 Now; the

possibility of a thing can never be proved from the fact that the

conception of it is not self…contradictory; but only by means of an

intuition corresponding to the conception。 If; therefore; we wish to

apply the categories to objects which cannot be regarded as phenomena;

we must have an intuition different from the sensuous; and in this

case the objects would be a noumena in the positive sense of the word。

Now; as such an intuition; that is; an intellectual intuition; is no

part of our faculty of cognition; it is absolutely impossible for

the categories to possess any application beyond the limits of

experience。 It may be true that there are intelligible existences to

which our faculty of sensuous intuition has no relation; and cannot be

applied; but our conceptions of the understanding; as mere forms of

thought for our sensuous intuition; do not extend to these。 What;

therefore; we call noumenon must be understood by us as such in a

negative sense。

  If I take away from an empirial intuition all thought (by means of

the categories); there remains no cognition of any object; for by

means of mere intuition nothing is cogitated; and; from the

existence of such or such an affection of sensibility in me; it does

not follow that this affection or representation has any relation to

an object without me。 But if I take away all intuition; there still

remains the form of thought; that is; the mode of determining an

object for the manifold of a possible intuition。 Thus the categories

do in some measure really extend further than sensuous intuition;

inasmuch as they think objects in general; without regard to the

mode (of sensibility) in which these objects are given。 But they do

not for this reason apply to and determine a wider sphere of

objects; because we cannot assume that such can be given; without

presupposing the possibility of another than the sensuous mode of

intuition; a supposition we are not justified in making。

  I call a conception problematical which contains in itself no

contradiction; and which is connected with other cognitions as a

limitation of given conceptions; but whose objective reality cannot be

cognized in any manner。 The conception of a noumenon; that is; of a

thing which must be cogitated not as an object of sense; but as a

thing in itself (solely through the pure understanding); is not

self…contradictory; for we are not entitled to maintain that

sensibility is the only possible mode of intuition。 Nay; further; this

conception is necessary to restrain sensuous intuition within the

bounds of phenomena; and thus to limit the objective validity of

sensuous cognition; for things in themselves; which lie beyond its

province; are called noumena for the very purpose of indicating that

this cognition does not extend its application to all that the

understanding thinks。 But; after all; the possibility of such

noumena is quite incomprehensible; and beyond the sphere of phenomena;

all is for us a mere void; that is to say; we possess an understanding

whose province does problematically extend beyond this sphere; but

we do not possess an intuition; indeed; not even the conception of a

possible intuition; by means of which objects beyond the region of

sensibility could be given us; and in reference to which the

understanding might be employed assertorically。 The conception of a

noumenon is therefore merely a limitative conception and therefore

only of negative use。 But it is not an arbitrary or fictitious notion;

but is connected with the limitation of sensibility; without; however;

being capable of presenting us with any positive datum beyond this

sphere。

  The division of objects into phenomena and noumena; and of the world

into a mundus sensibilis and intelligibilis is therefore quite

inadmissible in a positive sense; although conceptions do certainly

admit of such a division; for the class of noumena have no determinate

object corresponding to them; and cannot therefore possess objective

validity。 If we abandon the senses; how can it be made conceivable

that the categories (which are the only conceptions that could serve

as conceptions for noumena) have any sense or meaning at all; inasmuch

as something more than the mere unity of thought; namely; a possible

intuition; is requisite for their application to an object? The

conception of a noumenon; considered as merely problematical; is;

however; not only admissible; but; as a limitative conception of

sensibility; absolutely necessary。 But; in this case; a noumenon is

not a particular intelligible object for our understanding; on the

contrary; the kind of understanding to which it could belong is itself

a problem; for we cannot form the most distant conception of the

possibility of an understanding which should cognize an object; not

discursively by means of categories; but intuitively in a non…sensuous

intuition。 Our understanding attains in this way a sort of negative

extension。 That is to say; it is not limited by; but rather limits;

sensibility; by giving the name of noumena to things; not considered

as phenomena; but as things in themselves。 But it at the same time

prescribes limits to itself; for it confesses itself unable to cognize

these by means of the categories; and hence is compelled to cogitate

them merely as an unknown something。

  I find; however; in the writings of modern authors; an entirely

different use of the expressions; mundus sensibilis and

intelligibilis; which quite departs from the meaning of the

ancients… an acceptation in which; indeed; there is to be found no

difficulty; but which at the same time depends on mere verbal

quibbling。 According to this meaning; some have chosen to call the

complex of phenomena; in so far as it is intuited; mundus

sensibilis; but in so far as the connection thereof is cogitated

according to general laws of thought; mundus intelligibilis。

Astronomy; in so far as we mean by the word the mere observation of

the starry heaven; may represent the former; a system of astronomy;

such as the Copernican or Newtonian; the latter。 But such twisting

of words is a mere sophistical subterfuge; to avoid a difficult

question; by modifying its meaning to suit our own convenience。 To

be sure; understanding and reason are employed in the cognition of

phenomena; but the question is; whether these can be applied when

the object is not a phenomenon and in this sense we regard it if it is

cogitated as given to the understanding alone; and not to the

senses。 The question therefore

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 1 1

你可能喜欢的