the+critique+of+practical+reason-第12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！


the　same　reason　for　which　Hume　put　custom　in　the　place　of　objective
necessity　in　the　notion　of　cause　and；　in　spite　of　all　its　pride；
must　consent　to　lower　its　bold　pretension　of　claiming　assent　a
priori　and　depend　for　assent　to　the　universality　of　its　propositions
on　the　kindness　of　observers；　who；　when　called　as　witnesses；　would
surely　not　hesitate　to　admit　that　what　the　geometer　propounds　as　a
theorem　they　have　always　perceived　to　be　the　fact；　and；
consequently；　although　it　be　not　necessarily　true；　yet　they　would
permit　us　to　expect　it　to　be　true　in　the　future。　In　this　manner　Hume's
empiricism　leads　inevitably　to　scepticism；　even　with　regard　to
mathematics；　and　consequently　in　every　scientific　theoretical　use　of
reason　（for　this　belongs　either　to　philosophy　or　mathematics）。　Whether
with　such　a　terrible　overthrow　of　the　chief　branches　of　knowledge；
mon　reason　will　escape　better；　and　will　not　rather　bee
irrecoverably　involved　in　this　destruction　of　all　knowledge；　so　that
from　the　same　principles　a　universal　scepticism　should　follow
（affecting；　indeed；　only　the　learned）；　this　I　will　leave　everyone　to
judge　for　himself。
　　As　regards　my　own　labours　in　the　critical　examination　of　pure
reason；　which　were　occasioned　by　Hume's　sceptical　teaching；　but　went
much　further　and　embraced　the　whole　field　of　pure　theoretical　reason
in　its　synthetic　use　and；　consequently；　the　field　of　what　is　called
metaphysics　in　general；　I　proceeded　in　the　following　manner　with
respect　to　the　doubts　raised　by　the　Scottish　philosopher　touching
the　notion　of　causality。　If　Hume　took　the　objects　of　experience　for
things　in　themselves　（as　is　almost　always　done）；　he　was　quite　right　in
declaring　the　notion　of　cause　to　be　a　deception　and　false　illusion；
for　as　to　things　in　themselves；　and　their　attributes　as　such；　it　is
impossible　to　see　why　because　A　is　given；　B；　which　is　different；
must　necessarily　be　also　given；　and　therefore　he　could　by　no　means
admit　such　an　a　priori　knowledge　of　things　in　themselves。　Still　less
could　this　acute　writer　allow　an　empirical　origin　of　this　concept；
since　this　is　directly　contradictory　to　the　necessity　of　connection
which　constitutes　the　essence　of　the　notion　of　causality；　hence　the
notion　was　proscribed；　and　in　its　place　was　put　custom　in　the
observation　of　the　course　of　perceptions。
　　It　resulted；　however；　from　my　inquiries；　that　the　objects　with　which
we　have　to　do　in　experience　are　by　no　means　things　in　themselves；
but　merely　phenomena；　and　that　although　in　the　case　of　things　in
themselves　it　is　impossible　to　see　how；　if　A　is　supposed；　it　should　be
contradictory　that　B；　which　is　quite　different　from　A；　should　not　also
be　supposed　（i。e。；　to　see　the　necessity　of　the　connection　between　A　as
cause　and　B　as　effect）；　yet　it　can　very　well　be　conceived　that；　as
phenomena；　they　may　be　necessarily　connected　in　one　experience　in　a
certain　way　（e。g。；　with　regard　to　time…relations）；　so　that　they
could　not　be　separated　without　contradicting　that　connection；　by　means
of　which　this　experience　is　possible　in　which　they　are　objects　and
in　which　alone　they　are　cognisable　by　us。　And　so　it　was　found　to　be　in
fact；　so　that　I　was　able　not　only　to　prove　the　objective　reality　of
the　concept　of　cause　in　regard　to　objects　of　experience；　but　also　to
deduce　it　as　an　a　priori　concept　by　reason　of　the　necessity　of　the
connection　it　implied；　that　is；　to　show　the　possibility　of　its
origin　from　pure　understanding　without　any　empirical　sources；　and
thus；　after　removing　the　source　of　empiricism；　I　was　able　also　to
overthrow　the　inevitable　consequence　of　this；　namely；　scepticism；
first　with　regard　to　physical　science；　and　then　with　regard　to
mathematics　（in　which　empiricism　has　just　the　same　grounds）；　both
being　sciences　which　have　reference　to　objects　of　possible　experience；
herewith　overthrowing　the　thorough　doubt　of　whatever　theoretic
reason　professes　to　discern。
　　But　how　is　it　with　the　application　of　this　category　of　causality
（and　all　the　others；　for　without　them　there　can　be　no　knowledge　of
anything　existing）　to　things　which　are　not　objects　of　possible
experience；　but　lie　beyond　its　bounds？　For　I　was　able　to　deduce　the
objective　reality　of　these　concepts　only　with　regard　to　objects　of
possible　experience。　But　even　this　very　fact；　that　I　have　saved
them；　only　in　case　I　have　proved　that　objects　may　by　means　of　them
be　thought；　though　not　determined　a　priori；　this　it　is　that　gives　them
a　place　in　the　pure　understanding；　by　which　they　are　referred　to
objects　in　general　（sensible　or　not　sensible）。　If　anything　is　still
wanting；　it　is　that　which　is　the　condition　of　the　application　of　these
categories；　and　especially　that　of　causality；　to　objects；　namely；
intuition；　for　where　this　is　not　given；　the　application　with　a　view　to
theoretic　knowledge　of　the　object；　as　a　noumenon；　is　impossible　and；
therefore；　if　anyone　ventures　on　it；　is　（as　in　the　Critique　of　Pure
Reason）　absolutely　forbidden。　Still；　the　objective　reality　of　the
concept　（of　causality）　remains；　and　it　can　be　used　even　of　noumena；
but　without　our　being　able　in　the　least　to　define　the　concept
theoretically　so　as　to　produce　knowledge。　For　that　this　concept；
even　in　reference　to　an　object；　contains　nothing　impossible；　was　shown
by　this；　that；　even　while　applied　to　objects　of　sense；　its　seat　was
certainly　fixed　in　the　pure　understanding；　and　although；　when　referred
to　things　in　themselves　（which　cannot　be　objects　of　experience）；　it　is
not　capable　of　being　determined　so　as　to　represent　a　definite　object
for　the　purpose　of　theoretic　knowledge；　yet　for　any　other　purpose　（for
instance；　a　practical）　it　might　be　capable　of　being　determined　so　as
to　have　such　application。　This　could　not　be　the　case　if；　as　Hume
maintained；　this　concept　of　causality　contained　something　absolutely
impossible　to　be　thought。
　　In　order　now　to　discover　this　condition　of　the　application　of　the
said　concept　to　noumena；　we　need　only　recall　why　we　are　not　content
with　its　application　to　objects　of　experience；　but　desire　also　to
apply　it　to　things　in　themselves。　It　will　appear；　then；　that　it　is　not
a　theoretic　but　a　practical　purpose　that　makes　this　a　necessity。　In
speculation；　even　if　we　were　successful　in　it；　we　should　not　really
gain　anything　in　the　knowledge　of　nature；　or　generally　with　regard
to　such　objects　as　are　given；　but　we　should　make　a　wide　step　from
the　sensibly　conditioned　（in　which　we　have　already　enough　to　do　to
maintain　ourselves；　and　to　follow　carefully　the　chain　of　causes）　to
the　supersensible；　in　order　to　plete　our　knowledge　of　principles
and　to　fix　its　limits；　whereas　there　always　remains　an　infinite
chasm　unfilled　between　those　limits　and　what　we　know；　and　we　should
have　hearkened　to　a　vain　curiosity　rather　than　a　solid…desire　of
knowledge。
　　But；　besides　the　relation　in　which　the　understanding　stands　to
objects　（in　theoretical　knowledge）；　it　has　also　a　relation　to　the
faculty　of　desire；　which　is　therefore　called　the　will；　and　the　pure
will；　inasmuch　as　pure　understanding　（in　this　case　called　reason）　is
practical　through　the　mere　conception　of　a　law。　The　objective
reality　of　a　pure　will；　or；　what　is　the　same　thing；　of　a　pure
practical　reason；　is　given　in　the　moral　law　a　priori；　as　it　were；　by　a
fact；　for　so　we　may　name　a　determination　of　the　will　which　is
inevitable；　although　it　does　not　rest　on　empirical　principles。　Now；　in
the　notion　of　a　will　the　notion　of　causality　is　already　contained；　and
hence　the　notion　of　a　pure　will　contains　that　of　a　causality
acpanied　with　freedom；　that　is；　one　which　is　not　determinable　by
physical　laws；　and　consequently　is　not　capable　of　any　empirical
intuition　in　proof　of　its　reality；　but；　nevertheless；　pletely
justifies　its　objective　reality　a　priori　in　the　pure　practical　law；
not；　indeed　（as　is　easily　seen）　for　the　purposes　of　the　theoretical；
but　of　the　practical　use　of　reason。　Now　the　notion　of　a　being　that　has
free　will　is　the　notion　of　a　causa　noumenon；　and　that　this　notion
involves　no　contradiction；　we　are　already　assured　by　the　fact…　that
inasmuch　as　the　concept　of　cause　has　arisen　wholly　from　pure
understanding；　and　has　its　objective　reality　assured　by　the　deduction；
as　it　is　moreover　in　its　origin　independent　of　any　sensible
conditions；　it　is；　therefore；　not　restricted　to　phenomena　（unless　we
wanted　to　make　a　definite　theoretic　use　of　it）；　but　can　be　applied
equally　to　things　that　are　objects　of　the　pure　understanding。　But；
since　this　application　cannot　rest　on　any　intuition　（for　intuition　can
only　be　sensible）；　therefore；　causa　noumenon；　as　regards　the　theoretic
use　of　reason；　although　a　possible　and　thinkable；　is　yet　an　empty
notion。　Now；　I　do　not　desire　by　means　of　this　to　understand
theoretically　the　nature　of　a　being；　in　so　far　as　it　has　a　pure
will；　it　is　enough　for　me　to　have　thereby　designated　it　as　such；　and
hence　to　bine　the　notion　of　causality　with　that　of　freedom　（and
what　is　inseparable　from　it；　the　moral　law；　as　its　determining
principle）。　Now；　this　right　I　certainly　have　by　virtue　of　the　pure；
not…empirical　origin　of　the　notion　of　cause；　since　I　do　not　consider
myself　entitled　to　make　any　use　of　it　except　in　reference　to　the　moral
law　which　determines　its　reality；　that　is；　only　a　practical　use。
　　If；　with　Hume；　I　had　denied　to　the　notion　of　causality　all　objective
reality　in　its　＇theoretic＇　use；　not　merely　with　regard　to　things　in
themselves　（the　supersensible）；　but　also　with　regard　to　the　objects　of
the　senses；　it　would　have　lost　all　significance；　and　being　a
theoretically　impossible　notion　would　have　been　declared　to　be　quite
useless；　and　since　what　is　nothing　cannot　be　made　any　use　of；　the
practical　use　of　a　concept　theoretically　null　would　have　been
absurd。　But；　as　it　is；　the　concept　of　a　causality　free　from
empirical　conditions；　although　empty；　i。e。；　without　any　appropriate
intuition）；　is　yet　theoretically　possible；　and　refers　to　an
indeterminate　object；　but　in　pensation　significance　is　given　to
it　in　the　moral　law　and　consequently　in　a　practical　sense。　I　have；
indeed；　no　intuition　which　should　determine　its　objective　theoretic
reality；　but　not　the　less　it　has　a　real　application；　which　is
exhibited　in　concreto　in　intentions　or