the critique of pure reason-第88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！



these　contradictions　to　the　empirical　regress？　The　reason　is　this。

Possible　experience　can　alone　give　reality　to　our　conceptions；　without

it　a　conception　is　merely　an　idea；　without　truth　or　relation　to　an

object。　Hence　a　possible　empirical　conception　must　be　the　standard

by　which　we　are　to　judge　whether　an　idea　is　anything　more　than　an　idea

and　fiction　of　thought；　or　whether　it　relates　to　an　object　in　the

world。　If　we　say　of　a　thing　that　in　relation　to　some　other　thing　it　is

too　large　or　too　small；　the　former　is　considered　as　existing　for　the

sake　of　the　latter；　and　requiring　to　be　adapted　to　it。　Among　the

trivial　subjects　of　discussion　in　the　old　schools　of　dialectics　was

this　question：　〃If　a　ball　cannot　pass　through　a　hole；　shall　we　say

that　the　ball　is　too　large　or　the　hole　too　small？〃　In　this　case　it

is　indifferent　what　expression　we　employ；　for　we　do　not　know　which

exists　for　the　sake　of　the　other。　On　the　other　hand；　we　cannot　say：

〃The　man　is　too　long　for　his　coat〃；　but：　〃The　coat　is　too　short　for

the　man。〃

　　We　are　thus　led　to　the　well…founded　suspicion　that　the

cosmological　ideas；　and　all　the　conflicting　sophistical　assertions

connected　with　them；　are　based　upon　a　false　and　fictitious

conception　of　the　mode　in　which　the　object　of　these　ideas　is　presented

to　us；　and　this　suspicion　will　probably　direct　us　how　to　expose　the

illusion　that　has　so　long　led　us　astray　from　the　truth。



　　　　　　SECTION　VI。　Transcendental　Idealism　as　the　Key　to　the

　　　　　　　　　　　　Solution　of　Pure　Cosmological　Dialectic。



　　In　the　transcendental　aesthetic　we　proved　that　everything　intuited

in　space　and　time；　all　objects　of　a　possible　experience；　are　nothing

but　phenomena；　that　is；　mere　representations；　and　that　these；　as

presented　to　us…　as　extended　bodies；　or　as　series　of　changes…　have

no　self…subsistent　existence　apart　from　human　thought。　This　doctrine　I

call　Transcendental　Idealism。*　The　realist　in　the　transcendental　sense

regards　these　modifications　of　our　sensibility；　these　mere

representations；　as　things　subsisting　in　themselves。



　　*I　have　elsewhere　termed　this　theory　formal　idealism；　to　distinguish

it　from　material　idealism；　which　doubts　or　denies　the　existence　of

external　things。　To　avoid　ambiguity；　it　seems　advisable　in　many

cases　to　employ　this　term　instead　of　that　mentioned　in　the　text。



　　It　would　be　unjust　to　accuse　us　of　holding　the　long…decried　theory

of　empirical　idealism；　which；　while　admitting　the　reality　of　space；

denies；　or　at　least　doubts；　the　existence　of　bodies　extended　in　it；

and　thus　leaves　us　without　a　sufficient　criterion　of　reality　and

illusion。　The　supporters　of　this　theory　find　no　difficulty　in

admitting　the　reality　of　the　phenomena　of　the　internal　sense　in

time；　nay；　they　go　the　length　of　maintaining　that　this　internal

experience　is　of　itself　a　sufficient　proof　of　the　real　existence　of

its　object　as　a　thing　in　itself。

　　Transcendental　idealism　allows　that　the　objects　of　external

intuition…　as　intuited　in　space；　and　all　changes　in　time…　as

represented　by　the　internal　sense；　are　real。　For；　as　space　is　the　form

of　that　intuition　which　we　call　external；　and；　without　objects　in

space；　no　empirical　representation　could　be　given　us；　we　can　and　ought

to　regard　extended　bodies　in　it　as　real。　The　case　is　the　same　with

representations　in　time。　But　time　and　space；　with　all　phenomena

therein；　are　not　in　themselves　things。　They　are　nothing　but

representations　and　cannot　exist　out　of　and　apart　from　the　mind。

Nay；　the　sensuous　internal　intuition　of　the　mind　（as　the　object　of

consciousness）；　the　determination　of　which　is　represented　by　the

succession　of　different　states　in　time；　is　not　the　real；　proper

self；　as　it　exists　in　itself…　not　the　transcendental　subject…　but　only

a　phenomenon；　which　is　presented　to　the　sensibility　of　this；　to　us；

unknown　being。　This　internal　phenomenon　cannot　be　admitted　to　be　a

self…subsisting　thing；　for　its　condition　is　time；　and　time　cannot　be

the　condition　of　a　thing　in　itself。　But　the　empirical　truth　of

phenomena　in　space　and　time　is　guaranteed　beyond　the　possibility　of

doubt；　and　sufficiently　distinguished　from　the　illusion　of　dreams　or

fancy…　although　both　have　a　proper　and　thorough　connection　in　an

experience　according　to　empirical　laws。　The　objects　of　experience　then

are　not　things　in　themselves；　but　are　given　only　in　experience；　and

have　no　existence　apart　from　and　independently　of　experience。　That

there　may　be　inhabitants　in　the　moon；　although　no　one　has　ever

observed　them；　must　certainly　be　admitted；　but　this　assertion　means

only；　that　we　may　in　the　possible　progress　of　experience　discover　them

at　some　future　time。　For　that　which　stands　in　connection　with　a

perception　according　to　the　laws　of　the　progress　of　experience　is

real。　They　are　therefore　really　existent；　if　they　stand　in　empirical

connection　with　my　actual　or　real　consciousness；　although　they　are　not

in　themselves　real；　that　is；　apart　from　the　progress　of　experience。

　　There　is　nothing　actually　given…　we　can　be　conscious　of　nothing　as

real；　except　a　perception　and　the　empirical　progression　from　it　to

other　possible　perceptions。　For　phenomena；　as　mere　representations；

are　real　only　in　perception；　and　perception　is；　in　fact；　nothing　but

the　reality　of　an　empirical　representation；　that　is；　a　phenomenon。

To　call　a　phenomenon　a　real　thing　prior　to　perception　means　either

that　we　must　meet　with　this　phenomenon　in　the　progress　of

experience；　or　it　means　nothing　at　all。　For　I　can　say　only　of　a

thing　in　itself　that　it　exists　without　relation　to　the　senses　and

experience。　But　we　are　speaking　here　merely　of　phenomena　in　space

and　time；　both　of　which　are　determinations　of　sensibility；　and　not

of　things　in　themselves。　It　follows　that　phenomena　are　not　things　in

themselves；　but　are　mere　representations；　which　if　not　given　in　us…　in

perception…　are　non…existent。

　　The　faculty　of　sensuous　intuition　is　properly　a　receptivity…　a

capacity　of　being　affected　in　a　certain　manner　by　representations；　the

relation　of　which　to　each　other　is　a　pure　intuition　of　space　and　time…

the　pure　forms　of　sensibility。　These　representations；　in　so　far　as

they　are　connected　and　determinable　in　this　relation　（in　space　and

time）　according　to　laws　of　the　unity　of　experience；　are　called

objects。　The　non…sensuous　cause　of　these　representations　is　completely

unknown　to　us　and　hence　cannot　be　intuited　as　an　object。　For　such　an

object　could　not　be　represented　either　in　space　or　in　time；　and

without　these　conditions　intuition　or　representation　is　impossible。　We

may；　at　the　same　time；　term　the　non…sensuous　cause　of　phenomena　the

transcendental　object…　but　merely　as　a　mental　correlate　to

sensibility；　considered　as　a　receptivity。　To　this　transcendental

object　we　may　attribute　the　whole　connection　and　extent　of　our

possible　perceptions；　and　say　that　it　is　given　and　exists　in　itself

prior　to　all　experience。　But　the　phenomena；　corresponding　to　it；　are

not　given　as　things　in　themselves；　but　in　experience　alone。　For　they

are　mere　representations；　receiving　from　perceptions　alone

significance　and　relation　to　a　real　object；　under　the　condition　that

this　or　that　perception…　indicating　an　object…　is　in　complete

connection　with　all　others　in　accordance　with　the　rules　of　the　unity

of　experience。　Thus　we　can　say：　〃The　things　that　really　existed　in

past　time　are　given　in　the　transcendental　object　of　experience。〃　But

these　are　to　me　real　objects；　only　in　so　far　as　I　can　represent　to

my　own　mind；　that　a　regressive　series　of　possible　perceptions…

following　the　indications　of　history；　or　the　footsteps　of　cause　and

effect…　in　accordance　with　empirical　laws…　that；　in　one　word；　the

course　of　the　world　conducts　us　to　an　elapsed　series　of　time　as　the

condition　of　the　present　time。　This　series　in　past　time　is　represented

as　real；　not　in　itself；　but　only　in　connection　with　a　possible

experience。　Thus；　when　I　say　that　certain　events　occurred　in　past

time；　I　merely　assert　the　possibility　of　prolonging　the　chain　of

experience；　from　the　present　perception；　upwards　to　the　conditions

that　determine　it　according　to　time。

　　If　I　represent　to　myself　all　objects　existing　in　all　space　and　time；

I　do　not　thereby　place　these　in　space　and　time　prior　to　all

experience；　on　the　contrary；　such　a　representation　is　nothing　more

than　the　notion　of　a　possible　experience；　in　its　absolute

completeness。　In　experience　alone　are　those　objects；　which　are　nothing

but　representations；　given。　But；　when　I　say　they　existed　prior　to　my

experience；　this　means　only　that　I　must　begin　with　the　perception

present　to　me　and　follow　the　track　indicated　until　I　discover　them

in　some　part　or　region　of　experience。　The　cause　of　the　empirical

condition　of　this　progression…　and　consequently　at　what　member　therein

I　must　stop；　and　at　what　point　in　the　regress　I　am　to　find　this

member…　is　transcendental；　and　hence　necessarily　incognizable。　But

with　this　we　have　n