the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第102部分

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！


ground；　for　the　purpose　of　being　able　to　cogitate　the　universality
of　the　principle　in　a　more　determinate　way。　For　example；　I　cogitate
the　existence　of　a　being　corresponding　to　a　pure　transcendental
idea。　But　I　cannot　admit　that　this　being　exists　absolutely　and　in
itself；　because　all　of　the　conceptions　by　which　I　can　cogitate　an
object　in　a　determinate　manner　fall　short　of　assuring　me　of　its
existence；　nay；　the　conditions　of　the　objective　validity　of　my
conceptions　are　excluded　by　the　idea…　by　the　very　fact　of　its　being　an
idea。　The　conceptions　of　reality；　substance；　causality；　nay；　even　that
of　necessity　in　existence；　have　no　significance　out　of　the　sphere　of
empirical　cognition；　and　cannot；　beyond　that　sphere；　determine　any
object。　They　may；　accordingly；　be　employed　to　explain　the
possibility　of　things　in　the　world　of　sense；　but　they　are　utterly
inadequate　to　explain　the　possibility　of　the　universe　itself
considered　as　a　whole；　because　in　this　case　the　ground　of
explanation　must　lie　out　of　and　beyond　the　world；　and　cannot；
therefore；　be　an　object　of　possible　experience。　Now；　I　may　admit　the
existence　of　an　inprehensible　being　of　this　nature…　the　object　of　a
mere　idea；　relatively　to　the　world　of　sense；　although　I　have　no　ground
to　admit　its　existence　absolutely　and　in　itself。　For　if　an　idea
（that　of　a　systematic　and　plete　unity；　of　which　I　shall　presently
speak　more　particularly）　lies　at　the　foundation　of　the　most　extended
empirical　employment　of　reason；　and　if　this　idea　cannot　be
adequately　represented　in　concreto；　although　it　is　indispensably
necessary　for　the　approximation　of　empirical　unity　to　the　highest
possible　degree…　I　am　not　only　authorized；　but　pelled；　to　realize
this　idea；　that　is；　to　posit　a　real　object　corresponding　thereto。
But　I　cannot　profess　to　know　this　object；　it　is　to　me　merely　a
something；　to　which；　as　the　ground　of　systematic　unity　in　cognition；　I
attribute　such　properties　as　are　analogous　to　the　conceptions　employed
by　the　understanding　in　the　sphere　of　experience。　Following　the
analogy　of　the　notions　of　reality；　substance；　causality；　and
necessity；　I　cogitate　a　being；　which　possesses　all　these　attributes　in
the　highest　degree；　and；　as　this　idea　is　the　offspring　of　my　reason
alone；　I　cogitate　this　being　as　self…subsistent　reason；　and　as　the
cause　of　the　universe　operating　by　means　of　ideas　of　the　greatest
possible　harmony　and　unity。　Thus　I　abstract　all　conditions　that
would　limit　my　idea；　solely　for　the　purpose　of　rendering　systematic
unity　possible　in　the　world　of　empirical　diversity；　and　thus
securing　the　widest　possible　extension　for　the　exercise　of　reason　in
that　sphere。　This　I　am　enabled　to　do；　by　regarding　all　connections　and
relations　in　the　world　of　sense；　as　if　they　were　the　dispositions　of　a
supreme　reason；　of　which　our　reason　is　but　a　faint　image。　I　then
proceed　to　cogitate　this　Supreme　Being　by　conceptions　which　have；
properly；　no　meaning　or　application；　except　in　the　world　of　sense。　But
as　I　am　authorized　to　employ　the　transcendental　hypothesis　of　such　a
being　in　a　relative　respect　alone；　that　is；　as　the　substratum　of　the
greatest　possible　unity　in　experience…　I　may　attribute　to　a　being
which　I　regard　as　distinct　from　the　world；　such　properties　as　belong
solely　to　the　sphere　of　sense　and　experience。　For　I　do　not　desire；　and
am　not　justified　in　desiring；　to　cognize　this　object　of　my　idea；　as　it
exists　in　itself；　for　I　possess　no　conceptions　sufficient　for　or　task；
those　of　reality；　substance；　causality；　nay；　even　that　of　necessity　in
existence；　losing　all　significance；　and　being　merely　the　signs　of
conceptions；　without　content　and　without　applicability；　when　I　attempt
to　carry　them　beyond　the　limits　of　the　world　of　sense。　I　cogitate
merely　the　relation　of　a　perfectly　unknown　being　to　the　greatest
possible　systematic　unity　of　experience；　solely　for　the　purpose　of
employing　it　as　the　schema　of　the　regulative　principle　which　directs
reason　in　its　empirical　exercise。
　　It　is　evident；　at　the　first　view；　that　we　cannot　presuppose　the
reality　of　this　transcendental　object；　by　means　of　the　conceptions
of　reality；　substance；　causality；　and　so　on；　because　these　conceptions
cannot　be　applied　to　anything　that　is　distinct　from　the　world　of
sense。　Thus　the　supposition　of　a　Supreme　Being　or　cause　is　purely
relative；　it　is　cogitated　only　in　behalf　of　the　systematic　unity　of
experience；　such　a　being　is　but　a　something；　of　whose　existence　in
itself　we　have　not　the　least　conception。　Thus；　too；　it　bees
sufficiently　manifest　why　we　required　the　idea　of　a　necessary　being　in
relation　to　objects　given　by　sense；　although　we　can　never　have　the
least　conception　of　this　being；　or　of　its　absolute　necessity。
　　And　now　we　can　clearly　perceive　the　result　of　our　transcendental
dialectic；　and　the　proper　aim　of　the　ideas　of　pure　reason…　which
bee　dialectical　solely　from　misunderstanding　and　inconsiderateness。
Pure　reason　is；　in　fact；　occupied　with　itself；　and　not　with　any
object。　Objects　are　not　presented　to　it　to　be　embraced　in　the　unity　of
an　empirical　conception；　it　is　only　the　cognitions　of　the
understanding　that　are　presented　to　it；　for　the　purpose　of　receiving
the　unity　of　a　rational　conception；　that　is；　of　being　connected
according　to　a　principle。　The　unity　of　reason　is　the　unity　of
system；　and　this　systematic　unity　is　not　an　objective　principle；
extending　its　dominion　over　objects；　but　a　subjective　maxim；　extending
its　authority　over　the　empirical　cognition　of　objects。　The
systematic　connection　which　reason　gives　to　the　empirical　employment
of　the　understanding　not　only　advances　the　extension　of　that
employment；　but　ensures　its　correctness；　and　thus　the　principle　of　a
systematic　unity　of　this　nature　is　also　objective；　although　only　in　an
indefinite　respect　（principium　vagum）。　It　is　not；　however；　a
constitutive　principle；　determining　an　object　to　which　it　directly
relates；　it　is　merely　a　regulative　principle　or　maxim；　advancing　and
strengthening　the　empirical　exercise　of　reason；　by　the　opening　up　of
new　paths　of　which　the　understanding　is　ignorant；　while　it　never
conflicts　with　the　laws　of　its　exercise　in　the　sphere　of　experience。
　　But　reason　cannot　cogitate　this　systematic　unity；　without　at　the
same　time　cogitating　an　object　of　the　idea…　an　object　that　cannot　be
presented　in　any　experience；　which　contains　no　concrete　example　of　a
plete　systematic　unity。　This　being　（ens　rationis　ratiocinatae）　is
therefore　a　mere　idea　and　is　not　assumed　to　be　a　thing　which　is　real
absolutely　and　in　itself。　On　the　contrary；　it　forms　merely　the
problematical　foundation　of　the　connection　which　the　mind　introduces
among　the　phenomena　of　the　sensuous　world。　We　look　upon　this
connection；　in　the　light　of　the　above…mentioned　idea；　as　if　it　drew
its　origin　from　the　supposed　being　which　corresponds　to　the　idea。
And　yet　all　we　aim　at　is　the　possession　of　this　idea　as　a　secure
foundation　for　the　systematic　unity　of　experience…　a　unity
indispensable　to　reason；　advantageous　to　the　understanding；　and
promotive　of　the　interests　of　empirical　cognition。
　　We　mistake　the　true　meaning　of　this　idea　when　we　regard　it　as　an
enouncement；　or　even　as　a　hypothetical　declaration　of　the　existence　of
a　real　thing；　which　we　are　to　regard　as　the　origin　or　ground　of　a
systematic　constitution　of　the　universe。　On　the　contrary；　it　is　left
pletely　undetermined　what　the　nature　or　properties　of　this
so…called　ground　may　be。　The　idea　is　merely　to　be　adopted　as　a　point
of　view；　from　which　this　unity；　so　essential　to　reason　and　so
beneficial　to　the　understanding；　may　be　regarded　as　radiating。　In
one　word；　this　transcendental　thing　is　merely　the　schema　of　a
regulative　principle；　by　means　of　which　Reason；　so　far　as　in　her　lies；
extends　the　dominion　of　systematic　unity　over　the　whole　sphere　of
experience。
　　The　first　object　of　an　idea　of　this　kind　is　the　ego；　considered
merely　as　a　thinking　nature　or　soul。　If　I　wish　to　investigate　the
properties　of　a　thinking　being；　I　must　interrogate　experience。　But　I
find　that　I　can　apply　none　of　the　categories　to　this　object；　the
schema　of　these　categories；　which　is　the　condition　of　their
application；　being　given　only　in　sensuous　intuition。　But　I　cannot　thus
attain　to　the　cognition　of　a　systematic　unity　of　all　the　phenomena
of　the　internal　sense。　Instead；　therefore；　of　an　empirical
conception　of　what　the　soul　really　is；　reason　takes　the　conception
of　the　empirical　unity　of　all　thought；　and；　by　cogitating　this　unity
as　unconditioned　and　primitive；　constructs　the　rational　conception
or　idea　of　a　simple　substance　which　is　in　itself　unchangeable；
possessing　personal　identity；　and　in　connection　with　other　real　things
external　to　it；　in　one　word；　it　constructs　the　idea　of　a　simple
self…subsistent　intelligence。　But　the　real　aim　of　reason　in　this
procedure　is　the　attainment　of　principles　of　systematic　unity　for
the　explanation　of　the　phenomena　of　the　soul。　That　is；　reason
desires　to　be　able　to　represent　all　the　determinations　of　the　internal
sense　as　existing　in　one　subject；　all　powers　as　deduced　from　one
fundamental　power；　all　changes　as　mere　varieties　in　the　condition　of　a
being　which　is　permanent　and　always　the　same；　and　all　phenomena　in
space　as　entirely　different　in　their　nature　from　the　procedure　of
thought。　Essential　simplicity　（with　the　other　attributes　predicated　of
the　ego）　is　regarded　as　the　mere　schema　of　this　regulative
principle；　it　is　not　assumed　that　it　is　the　actual　ground　of　the
properties　of　the　soul。　For　these　properties　may　rest　upon　quite
different　grounds；　of　which　we　are　pletely　ignorant；　just　as　the
above　predicates　could　not　give　us　any　knowledge　of　the　soul　as　it
is　in　itself；　even　if　we　regarded　them　as　valid　in　respect　of　it；
inasmuch　as　they　constitute　a　mere　idea；　which　cannot　be　represented
in　concreto。　Nothing　but　good　can　result　from　a　psychological　idea
of　this　kind；　if　we　only　take　proper　care　not　to　consider　it　as　more
than　an　idea；　that　is；　if　we　regard　it　as　valid　merely　in　relation
to　the　employment　of　reason；　in　the　sphere　of　the　phenomena　of　the
soul。　Under　the　guidance　of　this　idea；　or　principle；　no　empirical　laws
of　corporeal　phenomena　are　called　in　to　explain　that　which