the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第123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！


human　nature；　we　cannot　advance　further　with　the　help　of　the　highest
philosophy；　than　under　the　guidance　which　nature　has　vouchsafed　to　the
meanest　understanding。
　　　　　　　　　　CHAPTER　III。　The　Architectonic　of　Pure　Reason。

　　By　the　term　architectonic　I　mean　the　art　of　constructing　a　system。
Without　systematic　unity；　our　knowledge　cannot　bee　science；　it　will
be　an　aggregate；　and　not　a　system。　Thus　architectonic　is　the
doctrine　of　the　scientific　in　cognition；　and　therefore　necessarily
forms　part　of　our　methodology。
　　Reason　cannot　permit　our　knowledge　to　remain　in　an　unconnected　and
rhapsodistic　state；　but　requires　that　the　sum　of　our　cognitions　should
constitute　a　system。　It　is　thus　alone　that　they　can　advance　the　ends
of　reason。　By　a　system　I　mean　the　unity　of　various　cognitions　under
one　idea。　This　idea　is　the　conception…　given　by　reason…　of　the　form　of
a　whole；　in　so　far　as　the　conception　determines　a　priori　not　only
the　limits　of　its　content；　but　the　place　which　each　of　its　parts　is　to
occupy。　The　scientific　idea　contains；　therefore；　the　end　and　the
form　of　the　whole　which　is　in　accordance　with　that　end。　The　unity　of
the　end；　to　which　all　the　parts　of　the　system　relate；　and　through
which　all　have　a　relation　to　each　other；　municates　unity　to　the
whole　system；　so　that　the　absence　of　any　part　can　be　immediately
detected　from　our　knowledge　of　the　rest；　and　it　determines　a　priori
the　limits　of　the　system；　thus　excluding　all　contingent　or　arbitrary
additions。　The　whole　is　thus　an　organism　（articulatio）；　and　not　an
aggregate　（coacervatio）；　it　may　grow　from　within　（per
intussusceptionem）；　but　it　cannot　increase　by　external　additions
（per　appositionem）。　It　is；　thus；　like　an　animal　body；　the　growth　of
which　does　not　add　any　limb；　but；　without　changing　their
proportions；　makes　each　in　its　sphere　stronger　and　more　active。
　　We　require；　for　the　execution　of　the　idea　of　a　system；　a　schema；
that　is；　a　content　and　an　arrangement　of　parts　determined　a　priori
by　the　principle　which　the　aim　of　the　system　prescribes。　A　schema
which　is　not　projected　in　accordance　with　an　idea；　that　is；　from　the
standpoint　of　the　highest　aim　of　reason；　but　merely　empirically；　in
accordance　with　accidental　aims　and　purposes　（the　number　of　which
cannot　be　predetermined）；　can　give　us　nothing　more　than　technical
unity。　But　the　schema　which　is　originated　from　an　idea　（in　which
case　reason　presents　us　with　aims　a　priori；　and　does　not　look　for　them
to　experience）；　forms　the　basis　of　architectonical　unity。　A　science；
in　the　proper　acceptation　of　that　term。　cannot　be　formed
technically；　that　is；　from　observation　of　the　similarity　existing
between　different　objects；　and　the　purely　contingent　use　we　make　of
our　knowledge　in　concreto　with　reference　to　all　kinds　of　arbitrary
external　aims；　its　constitution　must　be　framed　on　architectonical
principles；　that　is；　its　parts　must　be　shown　to　possess　an　essential
affinity；　and　be　capable　of　being　deduced　from　one　supreme　and
internal　aim　or　end；　which　forms　the　condition　of　the　possibility　of
the　scientific　whole。　The　schema　of　a　science　must　give　a　priori　the
plan　of　it　（monogramma）；　and　the　division　of　the　whole　into　parts；
in　conformity　with　the　idea　of　the　science；　and　it　must　also
distinguish　this　whole　from　all　others；　according　to　certain
understood　principles。
　　No　one　will　attempt　to　construct　a　science；　unless　he　have　some　idea
to　rest　on　as　a　proper　basis。　But；　in　the　elaboration　of　the
science；　he　finds　that　the　schema；　nay；　even　the　definition　which　he
at　first　gave　of　the　science；　rarely　corresponds　with　his　idea；　for
this　idea　lies；　like　a　germ；　in　our　reason；　its　parts　undeveloped
and　hid　even　from　microscopical　observation。　For　this　reason；　we　ought
to　explain　and　define　sciences；　not　according　to　the　description　which
the　originator　gives　of　them；　but　according　to　the　idea　which　we
find　based　in　reason　itself；　and　which　is　suggested　by　the　natural
unity　of　the　parts　of　the　science　already　accumulated。　For　it　will
of　ten　be　found　that　the　originator　of　a　science　and　even　his　latest
successors　remain　attached　to　an　erroneous　idea；　which　they　cannot
render　clear　to　themselves；　and　that　they　thus　fail　in　determining　the
true　content；　the　articulation　or　systematic　unity；　and　the　limits
of　their　science。
　　It　is　unfortunate　that；　only　after　having　occupied　ourselves　for　a
long　time　in　the　collection　of　materials；　under　the　guidance　of　an
idea　which　lies　undeveloped　in　the　mind；　but　not　according　to　any
definite　plan　of　arrangement…　nay；　only　after　we　have　spent　much
time　and　labour　in　the　technical　disposition　of　our　materials；　does　it
bee　possible　to　view　the　idea　of　a　science　in　a　clear　light；　and　to
project；　according　to　architectonical　principles；　a　plan　of　the　whole；
in　accordance　with　the　aims　of　reason。　Systems　seem；　like　certain
worms；　to　be　formed　by　a　kind　of　generatio　aequivoca…　by　the　mere
confluence　of　conceptions；　and　to　gain　pleteness　only　with　the
progress　of　time。　But　the　schema　or　germ　of　all　lies　in　reason；　and
thus　is　not　only　every　system　organized　according　to　its　own　idea；　but
all　are　united　into　one　grand　system　of　human　knowledge；　of　which　they
form　members。　For　this　reason；　it　is　possible　to　frame　an
architectonic　of　all　human　cognition；　the　formation　of　which；　at　the
present　time；　considering　the　immense　materials　collected　or　to　be
found　in　the　ruins　of　old　systems；　would　not　indeed　be　very　difficult。
Our　purpose　at　present　is　merely　to　sketch　the　plan　of　the
architectonic　of　all　cognition　given　by　pure　reason；　and　we　begin　from
the　point　where　the　main　root　of　human　knowledge　divides　into　two；　one
of　which　is　reason。　By　reason　I　understand　here　the　whole　higher
faculty　of　cognition；　the　rational　being　placed　in　contradistinction
to　the　empirical。
　　If　I　make　plete　abstraction　of　the　content　of　cognition；
objectively　considered；　all　cognition　is；　from　a　subjective　point　of
view；　either　historical　or　rational。　Historical　cognition　is
cognitio　ex　datis；　rational；　cognitio　ex　principiis。　Whatever　may　be
the　original　source　of　a　cognition；　it　is；　in　relation　to　the　person
who　possesses　it；　merely　historical；　if　he　knows　only　what　has　been
given　him　from　another　quarter；　whether　that　knowledge　was
municated　by　direct　experience　or　by　instruction。　Thus　the　Person
who　has　learned　a　system　of　philosophy…　say　the　Wolfian…　although　he
has　a　perfect　knowledge　of　all　the　principles；　definitions；　and
arguments　in　that　philosophy；　as　well　as　of　the　divisions　that　have
been　made　of　the　system；　possesses　really　no　more　than　an　historical
knowledge　of　the　Wolfian　system；　he　knows　only　what　has　been　told　him；
his　judgements　are　only　those　which　he　has　received　from　his　teachers。
Dispute　the　validity　of　a　definition；　and　he　is　pletely　at　a　loss
to　find　another。　He　has　formed　his　mind　on　another's；　but　the
imitative　faculty　is　not　the　productive。　His　knowledge　has　not　been
drawn　from　reason；　and　although；　objectively　considered；　it　is
rational　knowledge；　subjectively；　it　is　merely　historical。　He　has
learned　this　or　that　philosophy　and　is　merely　a　plaster　cast　of　a
living　man。　Rational　cognitions　which　are　objective；　that　is；　which
have　their　source　in　reason；　can　be　so　termed　from　a　subjective
point　of　view；　only　when　they　have　been　drawn　by　the　individual
himself　from　the　sources　of　reason；　that　is；　from　principles；　and　it
is　in　this　way　alone　that　criticism；　or　even　the　rejection　of　what　has
been　already　learned；　can　spring　up　in　the　mind。
　　All　rational　cognition　is；　again；　based　either　on　conceptions；　or　on
the　construction　of　conceptions。　The　former　is　termed　philosophical；
the　latter　mathematical。　I　have　already　shown　the　essential　difference
of　these　two　methods　of　cognition　in　the　first　chapter。　A　cognition
may　be　objectively　philosophical　and　subjectively　historical…　as　is
the　case　with　the　majority　of　scholars　and　those　who　cannot　look
beyond　the　limits　of　their　system；　and　who　remain　in　a　state　of
pupilage　all　their　lives。　But　it　is　remarkable　that　mathematical
knowledge；　when　mitted　to　memory；　is　valid；　from　the　subjective
point　of　view；　as　rational　knowledge　also；　and　that　the　same
distinction　cannot　be　drawn　here　as　in　the　case　of　philosophical
cognition。　The　reason　is　that　the　only　way　of　arriving　at　this
knowledge　is　through　the　essential　principles　of　reason；　and　thus　it
is　always　certain　and　indisputable；　because　reason　is　employed　in
concreto…　but　at　the　same　time　a　priori…　that　is；　in　pure　and；
therefore；　infallible　intuition；　and　thus　all　causes　of　illusion　and
error　are　excluded。　Of　all　the　a　priori　sciences　of　reason；　therefore；
mathematics　alone　can　be　learned。　Philosophy…　unless　it　be　in　an
historical　manner…　cannot　be　learned；　we　can　at　most　learn　to
philosophize。
　　Philosophy　is　the　system　of　all　philosophical　cognition。　We　must　use
this　term　in　an　objective　sense；　if　we　understand　by　it　the
archetype　of　all　attempts　at　philosophizing；　and　the　standard　by　which
all　subjective　philosophies　are　to　be　judged。　In　this　sense；
philosophy　is　merely　the　idea　of　a　possible　science；　which　does　not
exist　in　concreto；　but　to　which　we　endeavour　in　various　ways　to
approximate；　until　we　have　discovered　the　right　path　to　pursue…　a　path
overgrown　by　the　errors　and　illusions　of　sense…　and　the　image　we
have　hitherto　tried　in　vain　to　shape　has　bee　a　perfect　copy　of
the　great　prototype。　Until　that　time；　we　cannot　learn　philosophy…　it
does　not　exist；　if　it　does；　where　is　it；　who　possesses　it；　and　how
shall　we　know　it？　We　can　only　learn　to　philosophize；　in　other　words；
we　can　only　exercise　our　powers　of　reasoning　in　accordance　with
general　principles；　retaining　at　the　same　time；　the　right　of
investigating　the　sources　of　these　principles；　of　testing；　and　even　of
rejecting　them。
　　Until　then；　our　conception　of　philosophy　is　only　a　scholastic
conception…　a　conception；　that　is；　of　a　system　of　cognition　which　we
are　trying　to　elaborate　into　a　science；　all　that　we　at　present　know
being　the　systematic　unity　of　this　cognition；　and　consequently　the
logical　pleteness　of　the　cognition　for　the　desired　end。　But　there
is　also　a　cosmical　conception　（conceptus　cosmicus）　of　philosophy；