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

第58节

the critique of pure reason-第58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!



understanding (although; on account of the confused nature of their

representations; he gave them the name of phenomena); and in this case

his principle of the indiscernible (principium identatis

indiscernibilium) is not to be impugned。 But; as phenomena are objects

of sensibility; and; as the understanding; in respect of them; must be

employed empirically and not purely or transcendentally; plurality and

numerical difference are given by space itself as the condition of

external phenomena。 For one part of space; although it may be

perfectly similar and equal to another part; is still without it;

and for this reason alone is different from the latter; which is added

to it in order to make up a greater space。 It follows that this must

hold good of all things that are in the different parts of space at

the same time; however similar and equal one may be to another。

  2。 Agreement and Opposition。 When reality is represented by the pure

understanding (realitas noumenon); opposition between realities is

incogitable… such a relation; that is; that when these realities are

connected in one subject; they annihilate the effects of each other

and may be represented in the formula 3 … 3 = 0。 On the other hand;

the real in a phenomenon (realitas phaenomenon) may very well be in

mutual opposition; and; when united in the same subject; the one may

completely or in part annihilate the effect or consequence of the

other; as in the case of two moving forces in the same straight line

drawing or impelling a point in opposite directions; or in the case of

a pleasure counterbalancing a certain amount of pain。

  3。 The Internal and External。 In an object of the pure

understanding; only that is internal which has no relation (as regards

its existence) to anything different from itself。 On the other hand;

the internal determinations of a substantia phaenomenon in space are

nothing but relations; and it is itself nothing more than a complex of

mere relations。 Substance in space we are cognizant of only through

forces operative in it; either drawing others towards itself

(attraction); or preventing others from forcing into itself (repulsion

and impenetrability)。 We know no other properties that make up the

conception of substance phenomenal in space; and which we term matter。

On the other hand; as an object of the pure understanding; every

substance must have internal determination and forces。 But what

other internal attributes of such an object can I think than those

which my internal sense presents to me? That; to wit; which in

either itself thought; or something analogous to it。 Hence Leibnitz;

who looked upon things as noumena; after denying them everything

like external relation; and therefore also composition or combination;

declared that all substances; even the component parts of matter; were

simple substances with powers of representation; in one word; monads。

  4。 Matter and Form。 These two conceptions lie at the foundation of

all other reflection; so inseparably are they connected with every

mode of exercising the understanding。 The former denotes the

determinable in general; the second its determination; both in a

transcendental sense; abstraction being made of every difference in

that which is given; and of the mode in which it is determined。

Logicians formerly termed the universal; matter; the specific

difference of this or that part of the universal; form。 In a judgement

one may call the given conceptions logical matter (for the judgement);

the relation of these to each other (by means of the copula); the form

of the judgement。 In an object; the composite parts thereof

(essentialia) are the matter; the mode in which they are connected

in the object; the form。 In respect to things in general; unlimited

reality was regarded as the matter of all possibility; the

limitation thereof (negation) as the form; by which one thing is

distinguished from another according to transcendental conceptions。

The understanding demands that something be given (at least in the

conception); in order to be able to determine it in a certain

manner。 Hence; in a conception of the pure understanding; the matter

precedes the form; and for this reason Leibnitz first assumed the

existence of things (monads) and of an internal power of

representation in them; in order to found upon this their external

relation and the community their state (that is; of their

representations)。 Hence; with him; space and time were possible… the

former through the relation of substances; the latter through the

connection of their determinations with each other; as causes and

effects。 And so would it really be; if the pure understanding were

capable of an immediate application to objects; and if space and

time were determinations of things in themselves。 But being merely

sensuous intuitions; in which we determine all objects solely as

phenomena; the form of intuition (as a subjective property of

sensibility) must antecede all matter (sensations); consequently space

and time must antecede all phenomena and all data of experience; and

rather make experience itself possible。 But the intellectual

philosopher could not endure that the form should precede the things

themselves and determine their possibility; an objection perfectly

correct; if we assume that we intuite things as they are; although

with confused representation。 But as sensuous intuition is a

peculiar subjective condition; which is a priori at the foundation

of all perception; and the form of which is primitive; the form must

be given per se; and so far from matter (or the things themselves

which appear) lying at the foundation of experience (as we must

conclude; if we judge by mere conceptions); the very possibility of

itself presupposes; on the contrary; a given formal intuition (space

and time)。



    REMARK ON THE AMPHIBOLY OF THE CONCEPTIONS OF REFLECTION。



  Let me be allowed to term the position which we assign to a

conception either in the sensibility or in the pure understanding; the

transcendental place。 In this manner; the appointment of the

position which must be taken by each conception according to the

difference in its use; and the directions for determining this place

to all conceptions according to rules; would be a transcendental

topic; a doctrine which would thoroughly shield us from the

surreptitious devices of the pure understanding and the delusions

which thence arise; as it would always distinguish to what faculty

of cognition each conception properly belonged。 Every conception;

every title; under which many cognitions rank together; may be

called a logical place。 Upon this is based the logical topic of

Aristotle; of which teachers and rhetoricians could avail

themselves; in order; under certain titles of thought; to observe what

would best suit the matter they had to treat; and thus enable

themselves to quibble and talk with fluency and an appearance of

profundity。

  Transcendental topic; on the contrary; contains nothing more than

the above…mentioned four titles of all comparison and distinction;

which differ from categories in this respect; that they do not

represent the object according to that which constitutes its

conception (quantity; reality); but set forth merely the comparison of

representations; which precedes our conceptions of things。 But this

comparison requires a previous reflection; that is; a determination of

the place to which the representations of the things which are

compared belong; whether; to wit; they are cogitated by the pure

understanding; or given by sensibility。

  Conceptions may be logically compared without the trouble of

inquiring to what faculty their objects belong; whether as noumena; to

the understanding; or as phenomena; to sensibility。 If; however; we

wish to employ these conceptions in respect of objects; previous

transcendental reflection is necessary。 Without this reflection I

should make a very unsafe use of these conceptions; and construct

pretended synthetical propositions which critical reason cannot

acknowledge and which are based solely upon a transcendental

amphiboly; that is; upon a substitution of an object of pure

understanding for a phenomenon。

  For want of this doctrine of transcendental topic; and

consequently deceived by the amphiboly of the conceptions of

reflection; the celebrated Leibnitz constructed an intellectual system

of the world; or rather; believed himself competent to cognize the

internal nature of things; by comparing all objects merely with the

understanding and the abstract formal conceptions of thought。 Our

table of the conceptions of reflection gives us the unexpected

advantage of being able to exhibit the distinctive peculiarities of

his system in all its parts; and at the same time of exposing the

fundamental principle of this peculiar mode of thought; which rested

upon naught but a misconception。 He compared all things with each

other me

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 1 1

你可能喜欢的