the critique of pure reason-第94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！



general　representation　of　all　transcendental　ideas；　we　considered　them

under　phenomenal　conditions；　so；　in　the　two　mathematical　ideas；　our

discussion　is　concerned　solely　with　an　object　in　the　world　of

phenomena。　But　as　we　are　now　about　to　proceed　to　the　consideration

of　the　dynamical　conceptions　of　the　understanding；　and　their

adequateness　with　ideas；　we　must　not　lose　sight　of　this　distinction。

We　shall　find　that　it　opens　up　to　us　an　entirely　new　view　of　the

conflict　in　which　reason　is　involved。　For；　while　in　the　first　two

antinomies；　both　parties　were　dismissed；　on　the　ground　of　having

advanced　statements　based　upon　false　hypothesis；　in　the　present　case

the　hope　appears　of　discovering　a　hypothesis　which　may　be　consistent

with　the　demands　of　reason；　and；　the　judge　completing　the　statement　of

the　grounds　of　claim；　which　both　parties　had　left　in　an　unsatisfactory

state；　the　question　may　be　settled　on　its　own　merits；　not　by

dismissing　the　claimants；　but　by　a　comparison　of　the　arguments　on　both

sides。　If　we　consider　merely　their　extension；　and　whether　they　are

adequate　with　ideas；　the　series　of　conditions　may　be　regarded　as　all

homogeneous。　But　the　conception　of　the　understanding　which　lies　at　the

basis　of　these　ideas；　contains　either　a　synthesis　of　the　homogeneous

（presupposed　in　every　quantity…　in　its　composition　as　well　as　in　its

division）　or　of　the　heterogeneous；　which　is　the　case　in　the

dynamical　synthesis　of　cause　and　effect；　as　well　as　of　the　necessary

and　the　contingent。

　　Thus　it　happens　that　in　the　mathematical　series　of　phenomena　no

other　than　a　sensuous　condition　is　admissible…　a　condition　which　is

itself　a　member　of　the　series；　while　the　dynamical　series　of

sensuous　conditions　admits　a　heterogeneous　condition；　which　is　not　a

member　of　the　series；　but；　as　purely　intelligible；　lies　out　of　and

beyond　it。　And　thus　reason　is　satisfied；　and　an　unconditioned　placed

at　the　head　of　the　series　of　phenomena；　without　introducing

confusion　into　or　discontinuing　it；　contrary　to　the　principles　of

the　understanding。

　　Now；　from　the　fact　that　the　dynamical　ideas　admit　a　condition　of

phenomena　which　does　not　form　a　part　of　the　series　of　phenomena；

arises　a　result　which　we　should　not　have　expected　from　an　antinomy。　In

former　cases；　the　result　was　that　both　contradictory　dialectical

statements　were　declared　to　be　false。　In　the　present　case；　we　find　the

conditioned　in　the　dynamical　series　connected　with　an　empirically

unconditioned；　but　non…sensuous　condition；　and　thus　satisfaction　is

done　to　the　understanding　on　the　one　hand　and　to　the　reason　on　the

other。*　While；　moreover；　the　dialectical　arguments　for　unconditioned

totality　in　mere　phenomena　fall　to　the　ground；　both　propositions　of

reason　may　be　shown　to　be　true　in　their　proper　signification。　This

could　not　happen　in　the　case　of　the　cosmological　ideas　which

demanded　a　mathematically　unconditioned　unity；　for　no　condition

could　be　placed　at　the　head　of　the　series　of　phenomena；　except　one

which　was　itself　a　phenomenon　and　consequently　a　member　of　the　series。



　　*For　the　understanding　cannot　admit　among　phenomena　a　condition

which　is　itself　empirically　unconditioned。　But　if　it　is　possible　to

cogitate　an　intelligible　condition…　one　which　is　not　a　member　of　the

series　of　phenomena…　for　a　conditioned　phenomenon；　without　breaking

the　series　of　empirical　conditions；　such　a　condition　may　be　admissible

as　empirically　unconditioned；　and　the　empirical　regress　continue

regular；　unceasing；　and　intact。



　　　　III。　Solution　of　the　Cosmological　Idea　of　the　Totality　of

　　　　　　　the　Deduction　of　Cosmical　Events　from　their　Causes。



　　There　are　only　two　modes　of　causality　cogitable…　the　causality　of

nature　or　of　freedom。　The　first　is　the　conjunction　of　a　particular

state　with　another　preceding　it　in　the　world　of　sense；　the　former

following　the　latter　by　virtue　of　a　law。　Now；　as　the　causality　of

phenomena　is　subject　to　conditions　of　time；　and　the　preceding　state；

if　it　had　always　existed；　could　not　have　produced　an　effect　which

would　make　its　first　appearance　at　a　particular　time；　the　causality　of

a　cause　must　itself　be　an　effect…　must　itself　have　begun　to　be；　and

therefore；　according　to　the　principle　of　the　understanding；　itself

requires　a　cause。

　　We　must　understand；　on　the　contrary；　by　the　term　freedom；　in　the

cosmological　sense；　a　faculty　of　the　spontaneous　origination　of　a

state；　the　causality　of　which；　therefore；　is　not　subordinated　to

another　cause　determining　it　in　time。　Freedom　is　in　this　sense　a

pure　transcendental　idea；　which；　in　the　first　place；　contains　no

empirical　element；　the　object　of　which；　in　the　second　place；　cannot　be

given　or　determined　in　any　experience；　because　it　is　a　universal　law

of　the　very　possibility　of　experience；　that　everything　which　happens

must　have　a　cause；　that　consequently　the　causality　of　a　cause；　being

itself　something　that　has　happened；　must　also　have　a　cause。　In　this

view　of　the　case；　the　whole　field　of　experience；　how　far　soever　it　may

extend；　contains　nothing　that　is　not　subject　to　the　laws　of　nature。

But；　as　we　cannot　by　this　means　attain　to　an　absolute　totality　of

conditions　in　reference　to　the　series　of　causes　and　effects；　reason

creates　the　idea　of　a　spontaneity；　which　can　begin　to　act　of　itself；

and　without　any　external　cause　determining　it　to　action；　according

to　the　natural　law　of　causality。

　　It　is　especially　remarkable　that　the　practical　conception　of　freedom

is　based　upon　the　transcendental　idea；　and　that　the　question　of　the

possibility　of　the　former　is　difficult　only　as　it　involves　the

consideration　of　the　truth　of　the　latter。　Freedom；　in　the　practical

sense；　is　the　independence　of　the　will　of　coercion　by　sensuous

impulses。　A　will　is　sensuous；　in　so　far　as　it　is　pathologically

affected　（by　sensuous　impulses）；　it　is　termed　animal　（arbitrium

brutum）；　when　it　is　pathologically　necessitated。　The　human　will　is

certainly　an　arbitrium　sensitivum；　not　brutum；　but　liberum；　because

sensuousness　does　not　necessitate　its　action；　a　faculty　existing　in

man　of　self…determination；　independently　of　all　sensuous　coercion。

　　It　is　plain　that；　if　all　causality　in　the　world　of　sense　were

natural…　and　natural　only…　every　event　would　be　determined　by

another　according　to　necessary　laws；　and　that；　consequently；

phenomena；　in　so　far　as　they　determine　the　will；　must　necessitate

every　action　as　a　natural　effect　from　themselves；　and　thus　all

practical　freedom　would　fall　to　the　ground　with　the　transcendental

idea。　For　the　latter　presupposes　that　although　a　certain　thing　has　not

happened；　it　ought　to　have　happened；　and　that；　consequently；　its

phenomenal　cause　was　not　so　powerful　and　determinative　as　to　exclude

the　causality　of　our　will…　a　causality　capable　of　producing　effects

independently　of　and　even　in　opposition　to　the　power　of　natural

causes；　and　capable；　consequently；　of　spontaneously　originating　a

series　of　events。

　　Here；　too；　we　find　it　to　be　the　case；　as　we　generally　found　in　the

self…contradictions　and　perplexities　of　a　reason　which　strives　to　pass

the　bounds　of　possible　experience；　that　the　problem　is　properly　not

physiological；　but　transcendental。　The　question　of　the　possibility

of　freedom　does　indeed　concern　psychology；　but；　as　it　rests　upon

dialectical　arguments　of　pure　reason；　its　solution　must　engage　the

attention　of　transcendental　philosophy。　Before　attempting　this

solution；　a　task　which　transcendental　philosophy　cannot　decline；　it

will　be　advisable　to　make　a　remark　with　regard　to　its　procedure　in　the

settlement　of　the　question。

　　If　phenomena　were　things　in　themselves；　and　time　and　space　forms

of　the　existence　of　things；　condition　and　conditioned　would　always

be　members　of　the　same　series；　and　thus　would　arise　in　the　present

case　the　antinomy　common　to　all　transcendental　ideas…　that　their

series　is　either　too　great　or　too　small　for　the　understanding。　The

dynamical　ideas；　which　we　are　about　to　discuss　in　this　and　the

following　section；　possess　the　peculiarity　of　relating　to　an　object；

not　considered　as　a　quantity；　but　as　an　existence；　and　thus；　in　the

discussion　of　the　present　question；　we　may　make　abstraction　of　the

quantity　of　the　series　of　conditions；　and　consider　merely　the

dynamical　relation　of　the　condition　to　the　conditioned。　The

question；　then；　suggests　itself；　whether　freedom　is　possible；　and；

if　it　is；　whether　it　can　consist　with　the　universality　of　the

natural　law　of　causality；　and；　consequently；　whether　we　enounce　a

proper　disjunctive　proposition　when　we　say：　〃Every　effect　must　have

its　origin　either　in　nature　or　in　freedom；〃　or　whether　both　cannot

exist　together　in　the　same　event　in　different　relations。　The　principle

of　an　unbroken　connection　between　all　events　in　the　phenomenal

world；　in　accordance　with　the　unchangeable　laws　of　nature；　is　a

well…established　principle　of　transcendental　analytic　which　admits

of　no　exception。　The　question；　therefore；　is：　〃W