the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第23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！


inquiry。　But　a　deduction　of　the　pure　a　priori　conceptions　of　course
never　can　be　made　in　this　way；　seeing　that；　in　regard　to　their
future　employment；　which　must　be　entirely　independent　of　experience；
they　must　have　a　far　different　certificate　of　birth　to　show　from
that　of　a　descent　from　experience。　This　attempted　physiological
derivation；　which　cannot　properly　be　called　deduction；　because　it
relates　merely　to　a　quaestio　facti；　I　shall　entitle　an　explanation
of　the　possession　of　a　pure　cognition。　It　is　therefore　manifest　that
there　can　only　be　a　transcendental　deduction　of　these　conceptions
and　by　no　means　an　empirical　one；　also；　that　all　attempts　at　an
empirical　deduction；　in　regard　to　pure　a　priori　conceptions；　are　vain；
and　can　only　be　made　by　one　who　does　not　understand　the　altogether
peculiar　nature　of　these　cognitions。
　　But　although　it　is　admitted　that　the　only　possible　deduction　of　pure
a　priori　cognition　is　a　transcendental　deduction；　it　is　not；　for
that　reason；　perfectly　manifest　that　such　a　deduction　is　absolutely
necessary。　We　have　already　traced　to　their　sources　the　conceptions
of　space　and　time；　by　means　of　a　transcendental　deduction；　and　we　have
explained　and　determined　their　objective　validity　a　priori。
Geometry；　nevertheless；　advances　steadily　and　securely　in　the　province
of　pure　a　priori　cognitions；　without　needing　to　ask　from　philosophy
any　certificate　as　to　the　pure　and　legitimate　origin　of　its
fundamental　conception　of　space。　But　the　use　of　the　conception　in　this
science　extends　only　to　the　external　world　of　sense；　the　pure　form
of　the　intuition　of　which　is　space；　and　in　this　world；　therefore；
all　geometrical　cognition；　because　it　is　founded　upon　a　priori
intuition；　possesses　immediate　evidence；　and　the　objects　of　this
cognition　are　given　a　priori　（as　regards　their　form）　in　intuition　by
and　through　the　cognition　itself。　With　the　pure　conceptions　of
understanding；　on　the　contrary；　mences　the　absolute　necessity　of
seeking　a　transcendental　deduction；　not　only　of　these　conceptions
themselves；　but　likewise　of　space；　because；　inasmuch　as　they　make
affirmations　concerning　objects　not　by　means　of　the　predicates　of
intuition　and　sensibility；　but　of　pure　thought　a　priori；　they　apply　to
objects　without　any　of　the　conditions　of　sensibility。　Besides；　not
being　founded　on　experience；　they　are　not　presented　with　any　object　in
a　priori　intuition　upon　which；　antecedently　to　experience；　they
might　base　their　synthesis。　Hence　results；　not　only　doubt　as　to　the
objective　validity　and　proper　limits　of　their　use；　but　that　even　our
conception　of　space　is　rendered　equivocal；　inasmuch　as　we　are　very
ready　with　the　aid　of　the　categories；　to　carry　the　use　of　this
conception　beyond　the　conditions　of　sensuous　intuition…　and；　for
this　reason；　we　have　already　found　a　transcendental　deduction　of　it
needful。　The　reader；　then；　must　be　quite　convinced　of　the　absolute
necessity　of　a　transcendental　deduction；　before　taking　a　single　step
in　the　field　of　pure　reason；　because　otherwise　he　goes　to　work
blindly；　and　after　he　has　wondered　about　in　all　directions；　returns　to
the　state　of　utter　ignorance　from　which　he　started。　He　ought；
moreover；　clearly　to　recognize　beforehand　the　unavoidable　difficulties
in　his　undertaking；　so　that　he　may　not　afterwards　plain　of　the
obscurity　in　which　the　subject　itself　is　deeply　involved；　or　bee
too　soon　impatient　of　the　obstacles　in　his　path；　because　we　have　a
choice　of　only　two　things…　either　at　once　to　give　up　all　pretensions
to　knowledge　beyond　the　limits　of　possible　experience；　or　to　bring
this　critical　investigation　to　pletion。
　　We　have　been　able；　with　very　little　trouble；　to　make　it
prehensible　how　the　conceptions　of　space　and　time；　although　a
priori　cognitions；　must　necessarily　apply　to　external　objects；　and
render　a　synthetical　cognition　of　these　possible；　independently　of　all
experience。　For　inasmuch　as　only　by　means　of　such　pure　form　of
sensibility　an　object　can　appear　to　us；　that　is；　be　an　object　of
empirical　intuition；　space　and　time　are　pure　intuitions；　which　contain
a　priori　the　condition　of　the　possibility　of　objects　as　phenomena；　and
an　a　priori　synthesis　in　these　intuitions　possesses　objective
validity。
　　On　the　other　hand；　the　categories　of　the　understanding　do　not
represent　the　conditions　under　which　objects　are　given　to　us　in
intuition；　objects　can　consequently　appear　to　us　without　necessarily
connecting　themselves　with　these；　and　consequently　without　any
necessity　binding　on　the　understanding　to　contain　a　priori　the
conditions　of　these　objects。　Thus　we　find　ourselves　involved　in　a
difficulty　which　did　not　present　itself　in　the　sphere　of
sensibility；　that　is　to　say；　we　cannot　discover　how　the　subjective
conditions　of　thought　can　have　objective　validity；　in　other　words；　can
bee　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　all　cognition　of　objects；
for　phenomena　may　certainly　be　given　to　us　in　intuition　without　any
help　from　the　functions　of　the　understanding。　Let　us　take；　for
example；　the　conception　of　cause；　which　indicates　a　peculiar　kind　of
synthesis；　namely；　that　with　something；　A；　something　entirely
different；　B；　is　connected　according　to　a　law。　It　is　not　a　priori
manifest　why　phenomena　should　contain　anything　of　this　kind　（we　are　of
course　debarred　from　appealing　for　proof　to　experience；　for　the
objective　validity　of　this　conception　must　be　demonstrated　a
priori）；　and　it　hence　remains　doubtful　a　priori；　whether　such　a
conception　be　not　quite　void　and　without　any　corresponding　object
among　phenomena。　For　that　objects　of　sensuous　intuition　must
correspond　to　the　formal　conditions　of　sensibility　existing　a　priori
in　the　mind　is　quite　evident；　from　the　fact　that　without　these　they
could　not　be　objects　for　us；　but　that　they　must　also　correspond　to　the
conditions　which　understanding　requires　for　the　synthetical　unity　of
thought　is　an　assertion；　the　grounds　for　which　are　not　so　easily　to　be
discovered。　For　phenomena　might　be　so　constituted　as　not　to　correspond
to　the　conditions　of　the　unity　of　thought；　and　all　things　might　lie　in
such　confusion　that；　for　example；　nothing　could　be　met　with　in　the
sphere　of　phenomena　to　suggest　a　law　of　synthesis；　and　so　correspond
to　the　conception　of　cause　and　effect；　so　that　this　conception　would
be　quite　void；　null；　and　without　significance。　Phenomena　would
nevertheless　continue　to　present　objects　to　our　intuition；　for　mere
intuition　　does　not　in　any　respect　stand　in　need　of　the　functions　of
thought。
　　If　we　thought　to　free　ourselves　from　the　labour　of　these
investigations　by　saying：　〃Experience　is　constantly　offering　us
examples　of　the　relation　of　cause　and　effect　in　phenomena；　and
presents　us　with　abundant　opportunity　of　abstracting　the　conception　of
cause；　and　so　at　the　same　time　of　corroborating　the　objective　validity
of　this　conception〃；　we　should　in　this　case　be　overlooking　the　fact；
that　the　conception　of　cause　cannot　arise　in　this　way　at　all；　that；　on
the　contrary；　it　must　either　have　an　a　priori　basis　in　the；
understanding；　or　be　rejected　as　a　mere　chimera。　For　this　conception
demands　that　something；　A；　should　be　of　such　a　nature　that　something
else；　B；　should　follow　from　it　necessarily；　and　according　to　an
absolutely　universal　law。　We　may　certainly　collect　from　phenomena　a
law；　according　to　which　this　or　that　usually　happens；　but　the
element　of　necessity　is　not　to　be　found　in　it。　Hence　it　is　evident
that　to　the　synthesis　of　cause　and　effect　belongs　a　dignity；　which
is　utterly　wanting　in　any　empirical　synthesis；　for　it　is　no　mere
mechanical　synthesis；　by　means　of　addition；　but　a　dynamical　one；
that　is　to　say；　the　effect　is　not　to　be　cogitated　as　merely　annexed　to
the　cause；　but　as　posited　by　and　through　the　cause；　and　resulting　from
it。　The　strict　universality　of　this　law　never　can　be　a
characteristic　of　empirical　laws；　which　obtain　through　induction
only　a　parative　universality；　that　is；　an　extended　range　of
practical　application。　But　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding
would　entirely　lose　all　their　peculiar　character；　if　we　treated　them
merely　as　the　productions　of　experience。

　　　　　Transition　to　the　Transcendental　Deduction　of　the
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Categories。　SS　10

　　There　are　only　two　possible　ways　in　which　synthetical　representation
and　its　objects　can　coincide　with　and　relate　necessarily　to　each
other；　and；　as　it　were；　meet　together。　Either　the　object　alone　makes
the　representation　possible；　or　the　representation　alone　makes　the
object　possible。　In　the　former　case；　the　relation　between　them　is　only
empirical；　and　an　a　priori　representation　is　impossible。　And　this　is
the　case　with　phenomena；　as　regards　that　in　them　which　is　referable　to
mere　sensation。　In　the　latter　case…　although　representation　alone　（for
of　its　causality；　by　means　of　the　will；　we　do　not　here　speak）　does　not
produce　the　object　as　to　its　existence；　it　must　nevertheless　be　a
priori　determinative　in　regard　to　the　object；　if　it　is　only　by　means
of　the　representation　that　we　can　cognize　anything　as　an　object。　Now
there　are　only　two　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　a　cognition　of
objects；　firstly；　intuition；　by　means　of　which　the　object；　though　only
as　phenomenon；　is　given；　secondly；　conception；　by　means　of　which　the
object　which　corresponds　to　this　intuition　is　thought。　But　it　is
evident　from　what　has　been　said　on　aesthetic　that　the　first　condition；
under　which　alone　objects　can　be　intuited；　must　in　fact　exist；　as　a
formal　basis　for　them；　a　priori　in　the　mind。　With　this　formal
condition　of　sensibility；　therefore；　all　phenomena　necessarily
correspond；　because　it　is　only　through　it　that　they　can　be　phenomena
at　all；　that　is；　can　be　empirically　intuited　and　given。　Now　the
question　is　whether　there　do　not　exist；　a　priori　in　the　mind；
conceptions　of　understanding　also；　as　conditions　under　which　alone
something；　if　not　intuited；　is　yet　thought　as　object。　If　this　question
be　answered　in　the　affirmative；　it　follows　that　all　empirical
cognition　of　objects　is　necessarily　conformable　to　such　conceptions；
since；　if　they　are　not　presupposed；　it　is　impossible　that　anything　can
be　an　object　of　experience。　Now　all　experience　contains；　besides　the
intuition　of　the