the critique of pure reason-第27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！



others　must　be　referred…　a　doctrine；　however；　which；　according　to　SS

5；　is　utterly　false。



　　But　if　I　investigate　more　closely　the　relation　of　given　cognitions

in　every　judgement；　and　distinguish　it；　as　belonging　to　the

understanding；　from　the　relation　which　is　produced　according　to　laws

of　the　reproductive　imagination　（which　has　only　subjective

validity）；　I　find　that　judgement　is　nothing　but　the　mode　of　bringing

given　cognitions　under　the　objective　unit　of　apperception。　This　is

plain　from　our　use　of　the　term　of　relation　is　in　judgements；　in

order　to　distinguish　the　objective　unity　of　given　representations　from

the　subjective　unity。　For　this　term　indicates　the　relation　of　these

representations　to　the　original　apperception；　and　also　their　necessary

unity；　even　although　the　judgement　is　empirical；　therefore　contingent；

as　in　the　judgement：　〃All　bodies　are　heavy。〃　I　do　not　mean　by　this；

that　these　representations　do　necessarily　belong　to　each　other　in

empirical　intuition；　but　that　by　means　of　the　necessary　unity　of

appreciation　they　belong　to　each　other　in　the　synthesis　of　intuitions；

that　is　to　say；　they　belong　to　each　other　according　to　principles　of

the　objective　determination　of　all　our　representations；　in　so　far　as

cognition　can　arise　from　them；　these　principles　being　all　deduced　from

the　main　principle　of　the　transcendental　unity　of　apperception。　In

this　way　alone　can　there　arise　from　this　relation　a　judgement；　that

is；　a　relation　which　has　objective　validity；　and　is　perfectly　distinct

from　that　relation　of　the　very　same　representations　which　has　only

subjective　validity…　a　relation；　to　wit；　which　is　produced　according

to　laws　of　association。　According　to　these　laws；　I　could　only　say：

〃When　I　hold　in　my　hand　or　carry　a　body；　I　feel　an　impression　of

weight〃；　but　I　could　not　say：　〃It；　the　body；　is　heavy〃；　for　this　is

tantamount　to　saying　both　these　representations　are　conjoined　in　the

object；　that　is；　without　distinction　as　to　the　condition　of　the

subject；　and　do　not　merely　stand　together　in　my　perception；　however

frequently　the　perceptive　act　may　be　repeated。



　　　　All　Sensuous　Intuitions　are　subject　to　the　Categories；　as

　　　　　　Conditions　under　which　alone　the　manifold　Content　of

　　　　　　　　them　can　be　united　in　one　Consciousness。　SS　16



　　The　manifold　content　given　in　a　sensuous　intuition　comes　necessarily

under　the　original　synthetical　unity　of　apperception；　because

thereby　alone　is　the　unity　of　intuition　possible　（SS　13）。　But　that　act

of　the　understanding；　by　which　the　manifold　content　of　given

representations　（whether　intuitions　or　conceptions）　is　brought　under

one　apperception；　is　the　logical　function　of　judgements　（SS　15）。　All

the　manifold；　therefore；　in　so　far　as　it　is　given　in　one　empirical

intuition；　is　determined　in　relation　to　one　of　the　logical　functions

of　judgement；　by　means　of　which　it　is　brought　into　union　in　one

consciousness。　Now　the　categories　are　nothing　else　than　these

functions　of　judgement　so　far　as　the　manifold　in　a　given　intuition

is　determined　in　relation　to　them　（SS　9）。　Consequently；　the　manifold

in　a　given　intuition　is　necessarily　subject　to　the　categories　of　the

understanding。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Observation。　SS　17



　　The　manifold　in　an　intuition；　which　I　call　mine；　is　represented　by

means　of　the　synthesis　of　the　understanding；　as　belonging　to　the

necessary　unity　of　self…consciousness；　and　this　takes　place　by　means

of　the　category。*　The　category　indicates　accordingly　that　the

empirical　consciousness　of　a　given　manifold　in　an　intuition　is　subject

to　a　pure　self…consciousness　a　priori；　in　the　same　manner　as　an

empirical　intuition　is　subject　to　a　pure　sensuous　intuition；　which

is　also　a　priori。　In　the　above　proposition；　then；　lies　the　beginning

of　a　deduction　of　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding。　Now；　as

the　categories　have　their　origin　in　the　understanding　alone；

independently　of　sensibility；　I　must　in　my　deduction　make

abstraction　of　the　mode　in　which　the　manifold　of　an　empirical

intuition　is　given；　in　order　to　fix　my　attention　exclusively　on　the

unity　which　is　brought　by　the　understanding　into　the　intuition　by

means　of　the　category。　In　what　follows　（SS　22）；　it　will　be　shown；　from

the　mode　in　which　the　empirical　intuition　is　given　in　the　faculty　of

sensibility；　that　the　unity　which　belongs　to　it　is　no　other　than

that　which　the　category　（according　to　SS　16）　imposes　on　the　manifold

in　a　given　intuition；　and　thus；　its　a　priori　validity　in　regard　to　all

objects　of　sense　being　established；　the　purpose　of　our　deduction

will　be　fully　attained。



　　*The　proof　of　this　rests　on　the　represented　unity　of　intuition；　by

means　of　which　an　object　is　given；　and　which　always　includes　in　itself

a　synthesis　of　the　manifold　to　be　intuited；　and　also　the　relation　of

this　latter　to　unity　of　apperception。



　　But　there　is　one　thing　in　the　above　demonstration　of　which　I　could

not　make　abstraction；　namely；　that　the　manifold　to　be　intuited　must　be

given　previously　to　the　synthesis　of　the　understanding；　and

independently　of　it。　How　this　takes　place　remains　here　undetermined。

For　if　I　cogitate　an　understanding　which　was　itself　intuitive　（as；　for

example；　a　divine　understanding　which　should　not　represent　given

objects；　but　by　whose　representation　the　objects　themselves　should

be　given　or　produced）；　the　categories　would　possess　no　significance　in

relation　to　such　a　faculty　of　cognition。　They　are　merely　rules　for

an　understanding；　whose　whole　power　consists　in　thought；　that　is；　in

the　act　of　submitting　the　synthesis　of　the　manifold　which　is　presented

to　it　in　intuition　from　a　very　different　quarter；　to　the　unity　of

apperception；　a　faculty；　therefore；　which　cognizes　nothing　per　se；　but

only　connects　and　arranges　the　material　of　cognition；　the　intuition；

namely；　which　must　be　presented　to　it　by　means　of　the　object。　But　to

show　reasons　for　this　peculiar　character　of　our　understandings；　that

it　produces　unity　of　apperception　a　priori　only　by　means　of

categories；　and　a　certain　kind　and　number　thereof；　is　as　impossible　as

to　explain　why　we　are　endowed　with　precisely　so　many　functions　of

judgement　and　no　more；　or　why　time　and　space　are　the　only　forms　of　our

intuition。



　　　　In　Cognition；　its　Application　to　Objects　of　Experience　is

　　　　the　only　legitimate　use　of　the　Category。　SS　18



　　To　think　an　object　and　to　cognize　an　object　are　by　no　means　the　same

thing。　In　cognition　there　are　two　elements：　firstly；　the　conception；

whereby　an　object　is　cogitated　（the　category）；　and；　secondly；　the

intuition；　whereby　the　object　is　given。　For　supposing　that　to　the

conception　a　corresponding　intuition　could　not　be　given；　it　would

still　be　a　thought　as　regards　its　form；　but　without　any　object；　and　no

cognition　of　anything　would　be　possible　by　means　of　it；　inasmuch　as；

so　far　as　I　knew；　there　existed　and　could　exist　nothing　to　which　my

thought　could　be　applied。　Now　all　intuition　possible　to　us　is

sensuous；　consequently；　our　thought　of　an　object　by　means　of　a　pure

conception　of　the　understanding；　can　become　cognition　for　us　only　in

so　far　as　this　conception　is　applied　to　objects　of　the　senses。

Sensuous　intuition　is　either　pure　intuition　（space　and　time）　or

empirical　intuition…　of　that　which　is　immediately　represented　in　space

and　time　by　means　of　sensation　as　real。　Through　the　determination　of

pure　intuition　we　obtain　a　priori　cognitions　of　objects；　as　in

mathematics；　but　only　as　regards　their　form　as　phenomena；　whether

there　can　exist　things　which　must　be　intuited　in　this　form　is　not

thereby　established。　All　mathematical　conceptions；　therefore；　are

not　per　se　cognition；　except　in　so　far　as　we　presuppose　that　there

exist　things　which　can　only　be　represented　conformably　to　the　form

of　our　pure　sensuous　intuition。　But　things　in　space　and　time　are　given

only　in　so　far　as　they　are　perceptions　（representations　accompanied

with　sensation）；　therefore　only　by　empirical　representation。

Consequently　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding；　even　when　they

are　applied　to　intuitions　a　priori　（as　in　mathematics）；　produce

cognition　only　in　so　far　as　these　（and　therefore　the　conceptions　of

the　understanding　by　means　of　them）　can　be　applied　to　empirical

intuitions。　Consequently　the　categories　do　not；　even　by　means　of

pure　intuition　afford　us　any　cognition　of　things；　they　can　only　do

so　in　so　far　as　they　can　be　applied　to　empirical　intuition。　That　is　to

say；　the；　categories　serve　only　to　render　empirical　cognition

possible。　But　this　is　what　we　call　experience。　Consequently；　in

cognition；　their　application　to　objects　of　experience　is　the　only

legitimate　use　of　the　categories。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SS　19



　　The　foregoing　proposition　is　of　the　utmost　importance；　for　it

determines　the　limits　of　the　exercise　of　the　pure　conceptions　of　the

understanding　in　regard　to　objects；　just　as　transcendental　aesthetic

determined　the　limits　of　the　exercise　of　the　pure　form　of　our　sensuous

intuition。　Space　and　time；　as　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　the

presentation　of　objects　to　us；　are　valid　no　further　than　for　objects

of　sense；　consequently；　only　for　experience。　Beyond　these　limits

they　represent　to　us　nothing；　for　they　belong　only　to　sense；　and

have　no　reality　apart　from　it。　The　pure　conceptions　of　the

understanding　are　free　from　this　limitation；　and　extend　to　objects

of　intuition　in　general；　be　the　intuition　like　or　unlike　to　ours；

provided　only　it　be　sensuous；　and　not　intellectual。　But　this　extension

of　conceptions　beyond　the　range　of　our　intuition　is　of　no　advantage；

for　they　are　then　mere　empty　conceptions　of　objects；　as　to　the

possibility　or　impossibility　of　the　existence　of　which　they　furnish　us

with　no　means　of　discovery。　They　are　mere　forms　of　thought；　without

objective　reality；　because　we　have　no　intuition　to　which　the

synthetical　unity　of　apperception；　which　alone　the　categories　contain；

could　be　appl