the critique of pure reason-第114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！



deceive　philosophy；　whose　duty　it　is　to　see　that　reason　pursues　a　safe

and　straight　path。　A　philosophical　method　may；　however；　be

systematical。　For　our　reason　is；　subjectively　considered；　itself　a

system；　and；　in　the　sphere　of　mere　conceptions；　a　system　of

investigation　according　to　principles　of　unity；　the　material　being

supplied　by　experience　alone。　But　this　is　not　the　proper　place　for

discussing　the　peculiar　method　of　transcendental　philosophy；　as　our

present　task　is　simply　to　examine　whether　our　faculties　are　capable　of

erecting　an　edifice　on　the　basis　of　pure　reason；　and　how　far　they

may　proceed　with　the　materials　at　their　command。



　　　　　SECTION　II。　The　Discipline　of　Pure　Reason　in　Polemics。



　　Reason　must　be　subject；　in　all　its　operations；　to　criticism；　which

must　always　be　permitted　to　exercise　its　functions　without

restraint；　otherwise　its　interests　are　imperilled　and　its　influence

obnoxious　to　suspicion。　There　is　nothing；　however　useful；　however

sacred　it　may　be；　that　can　claim　exemption　from　the　searching

examination　of　this　supreme　tribunal；　which　has　no　respect　of　persons。

The　very　existence　of　reason　depends　upon　this　freedom；　for　the

voice　of　reason　is　not　that　of　a　dictatorial　and　despotic　power；　it　is

rather　like　the　vote　of　the　citizens　of　a　free　state；　every　member

of　which　must　have　the　privilege　of　giving　free　expression　to　his

doubts；　and　possess　even　the　right　of　veto。

　　But　while　reason　can　never　decline　to　submit　itself　to　the

tribunal　of　criticism；　it　has　not　always　cause　to　dread　the

judgement　of　this　court。　Pure　reason；　however；　when　engaged　in　the

sphere　of　dogmatism；　is　not　so　thoroughly　conscious　of　a　strict

observance　of　its　highest　laws；　as　to　appear　before　a　higher

judicial　reason　with　perfect　confidence。　On　the　contrary；　it　must

renounce　its　magnificent　dogmatical　pretensions　in　philosophy。

　　Very　different　is　the　case　when　it　has　to　defend　itself；　not

before　a　judge；　but　against　an　equal。　If　dogmatical　assertions　are

advanced　on　the　negative　side；　in　opposition　to　those　made　by　reason

on　the　positive　side；　its　justification　kat　authrhopon　is　complete；

although　the　proof　of　its　propositions　is　kat　aletheian

unsatisfactory。

　　By　the　polemic　of　pure　reason　I　mean　the　defence　of　its　propositions

made　by　reason；　in　opposition　to　the　dogmatical　counter…propositions

advanced　by　other　parties。　The　question　here　is　not　whether　its　own

statements　may　not　also　be　false；　it　merely　regards　the　fact　that

reason　proves　that　the　opposite　cannot　be　established　with

demonstrative　certainty；　nor　even　asserted　with　a　higher　degree　of

probability。　Reason　does　not　hold　her　possessions　upon　sufferance；

for；　although　she　cannot　show　a　perfectly　satisfactory　title　to

them；　no　one　can　prove　that　she　is　not　the　rightful　possessor。

　　It　is　a　melancholy　reflection　that　reason；　in　its　highest

exercise；　falls　into　an　antithetic；　and　that　the　supreme　tribunal

for　the　settlement　of　differences　should　not　be　at　union　with

itself。　It　is　true　that　we　had　to　discuss　the　question　of　an

apparent　antithetic；　but　we　found　that　it　was　based　upon　a

misconception。　In　conformity　with　the　common　prejudice；　phenomena　were

regarded　as　things　in　themselves；　and　thus　an　absolute　completeness　in

their　synthesis　was　required　in　the　one　mode　or　in　the　other　（it　was

shown　to　be　impossible　in　both）；　a　demand　entirely　out　of　place　in

regard　to　phenomena。　There　was；　then；　no　real　self…contradiction　of

reason　in　the　propositions：　The　series　of　phenomena　given　in

themselves　has　an　absolutely　first　beginning；　and：　This　series　is

absolutely　and　in　itself　without　beginning。　The　two　propositions　are

perfectly　consistent　with　each　other；　because　phenomena　as　phenomena

are　in　themselves　nothing；　and　consequently　the　hypothesis　that　they

are　things　in　themselves　must　lead　to　self…contradictory　inferences。

　　But　there　are　cases　in　which　a　similar　misunderstanding　cannot　be

provided　against；　and　the　dispute　must　remain　unsettled。　Take；　for

example；　the　theistic　proposition：　There　is　a　Supreme　Being；　and　on

the　other　hand；　the　atheistic　counter…statement：　There　exists　no

Supreme　Being；　or；　in　psychology：　Everything　that　thinks　possesses　the

attribute　of　absolute　and　permanent　unity；　which　is　utterly

different　from　the　transitory　unity　of　material　phenomena；　and　the

counter…proposition：　The　soul　is　not　an　immaterial　unity；　and　its

nature　is　transitory；　like　that　of　phenomena。　The　objects　of　these

questions　contain　no　heterogeneous　or　contradictory　elements；　for　they

relate　to　things　in　themselves；　and　not　to　phenomena。　There　would

arise；　indeed；　a　real　contradiction；　if　reason　came　forward　with　a

statement　on　the　negative　side　of　these　questions　alone。　As　regards

the　criticism　to　which　the　grounds　of　proof　on　the　affirmative　side

must　be　subjected；　it　may　be　freely　admitted；　without　necessitating

the　surrender　of　the　affirmative　propositions；　which　have；　at　least；

the　interest　of　reason　in　their　favour…　an　advantage　which　the

opposite　party　cannot　lay　claim　to。

　　I　cannot　agree　with　the　opinion　of　several　admirable　thinkers…

Sulzer　among　the　rest…　that；　in　spite　of　the　weakness　of　the　arguments

hitherto　in　use；　we　may　hope；　one　day；　to　see　sufficient

demonstrations　of　the　two　cardinal　propositions　of　pure　reason…　the

existence　of　a　Supreme　Being；　and　the　immortality　of　the　soul。　I　am

certain；　on　the　contrary；　that　this　will　never　be　the　case。　For　on

what　ground　can　reason　base　such　synthetical　propositions；　which　do

not　relate　to　the　objects　of　experience　and　their　internal

possibility？　But　it　is　also　demonstratively　certain　that　no　one　will

ever　be　able　to　maintain　the　contrary　with　the　least　show　of

probability。　For；　as　he　can　attempt　such　a　proof　solely　upon　the　basis

of　pure　reason；　he　is　bound　to　prove　that　a　Supreme　Being；　and　a

thinking　subject　in　the　character　of　a　pure　intelligence；　are

impossible。　But　where　will　he　find　the　knowledge　which　can　enable

him　to　enounce　synthetical　judgements　in　regard　to　things　which

transcend　the　region　of　experience？　We　may；　therefore；　rest　assured

that　the　opposite　never　will　be　demonstrated。　We　need　not；　then；

have　recourse　to　scholastic　arguments；　we　may　always　admit　the　truth

of　those　propositions　which　are　consistent　with　the　speculative

interests　of　reason　in　the　sphere　of　experience；　and　form；　moreover；

the　only　means　of　uniting　the　speculative　with　the　practical　interest。

Our　opponent；　who　must　not　be　considered　here　as　a　critic　solely；　we

can　be　ready　to　meet　with　a　non　liquet　which　cannot　fail　to　disconcert

him；　while　we　cannot　deny　his　right　to　a　similar　retort；　as　we　have　on

our　side　the　advantage　of　the　support　of　the　subjective　maxim　of

reason；　and　can　therefore　look　upon　all　his　sophistical　arguments　with

calm　indifference。

　　From　this　point　of　view；　there　is　properly　no　antithetic　of　pure

reason。　For　the　only　arena　for　such　a　struggle　would　be　upon　the　field

of　pure　theology　and　psychology；　but　on　this　ground　there　can　appear

no　combatant　whom　we　need　to　fear。　Ridicule　and　boasting　can　be　his

only　weapons；　and　these　may　be　laughed　at；　as　mere　child's　play。

This　consideration　restores　to　Reason　her　courage；　for　what　source

of　confidence　could　be　found；　if　she；　whose　vocation　it　is　to

destroy　error；　were　at　variance　with　herself　and　without　any

reasonable　hope　of　ever　reaching　a　state　of　permanent　repose？

　　Everything　in　nature　is　good　for　some　purpose。　Even　poisons　are

serviceable；　they　destroy　the　evil　effects　of　other　poisons

generated　in　our　system；　and　must　always　find　a　place　in　every

complete　pharmacopoeia。　The　objections　raised　against　the　fallacies

and　sophistries　of　speculative　reason；　are　objections　given　by　the

nature　of　this　reason　itself；　and　must　therefore　have　a　destination

and　purpose　which　can　only　be　for　the　good　of　humanity。　For　what

purpose　has　Providence　raised　many　objects；　in　which　we　have　the

deepest　interest；　so　far　above　us；　that　we　vainly　try　to　cognize

them　with　certainty；　and　our　powers　of　mental　vision　are　rather

excited　than　satisfied　by　the　glimpses　we　may　chance　to　seize？　It　is

very　doubtful　whether　it　is　for　our　benefit　to　advance　bold

affirmations　regarding　subjects　involved　in　such　obscurity；　perhaps　it

would　even　be　detrimental　to　our　best　interests。　But　it　is　undoubtedly

always　beneficial　to　leave　the　investigating；　as　well　as　the

critical　reason；　in　perfect　freedom；　and　permit　it　to　take　charge　of

its　own　interests；　which　are　advanced　as　much　by　its　limitation；　as　by

its　extension　of　its　views；　and　which　always　suffer　by　the

interference　of　foreign　powers　forcing　it；　against　its　natural

tendencies；　to　bend　to　certain　preconceived　designs。

　　Allow　your　opponent　to　say　what　he　thinks　reasonable；　and　combat　him

only　with　the　weapons　of　reason。　Have　no　anxiety　for　the　practical

interests　of　humanity…　these　are　never　imperilled　in　a　purely

speculative　dispute。　Such　a　dispute　serves　merely　to　disclose　the

antinomy　of　reason；　which；　as　it　has　its　source　in　the　nature　of

reason；　ought　to　be　thoroughly　investigated。　Reason　is　benefited　by

the　examination　of　a　subject　on　both　sides；　and　its　judgements　are

corrected　by　being　limited。　It　is　not　the　matter　that　may　give

occasion　to　dispute；　but　the　manner。　For　it　is　perfectly　permissible

to　employ；　in　the　presence　of　reason；　the　language　of　a　firmly

rooted　faith；　even　after　we　have　been　obliged　to　renounce　all

pretensions　to　knowledge。

　　If　we　were　to　ask　the　dispassionate　David　Hume…　a　philosopher

endowed；　in　a　degree　that　few　are；　with　a　well…balanced　judgement：

What　motive　induced　you　to　spend　so　much　labour　and　thought　in

undermining　the　consoling　and　beneficial　persuasion　that　reason　is

capable　of　assuring　us　of　the　existence；　and　presenting　us　with　a

determinate　conception　of　a　Supreme　Being？…　his　answer　would　be：

Nothing　but　the　desire　of　teaching　reason　to　know　its　own　powers

bet