the+critique+of+practical+reason-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！


make　it　so　much　the　more　culpable　and　deserving　of　punishment。　There
still　remains　a　difficulty　in　the　bination　of　freedom　with　the
mechanism　of　nature　in　a　being　belonging　to　the　world　of　sense；　a
difficulty　which；　even　after　all　the　foregoing　is　admitted；
threatens　freedom　with　plete　destruction。　But　with　this　danger
there　is　also　a　circumstance　that　offers　hope　of　an　issue　still
favourable　to　freedom；　namely；　that　the　same　difficulty　presses　much
more　strongly　（in　fact　as　we　shall　presently　see；　presses　only）　on　the
system　that　holds　the　existence　determinable　in　time　and　space　to　be
the　existence　of　things　in　themselves；　it　does　not　therefore　oblige　us
to　give　up　our　capital　supposition　of　the　ideality　of　time　as　a　mere
form　of　sensible　intuition；　and　consequently　as　a　mere　manner　of
representation　which　is　proper　to　the　subject　as　belonging　to　the
world　of　sense；　and　therefore　it　only　requires　that　this　view　be
reconciled　with　this　idea。
　　The　difficulty　is　as　follows：　Even　if　it　is　admitted　that　the
supersensible　subject　can　be　free　with　respect　to　a　given　action；
although；　as　a　subject　also　belonging　to　the　world　of　sense；　he　is
under　mechanical　conditions　with　respect　to　the　same　action；　still；　as
soon　as　we　allow　that　God　as　universal　first　cause　is　also　the　cause
of　the　existence　of　substance　（a　proposition　which　can　never　be
given　up　without　at　the　same　time　giving　up　the　notion　of　God　as　the
Being　of　all　beings；　and　therewith　giving　up　his　all　sufficiency；　on
which　everything　in　theology　depends）；　it　seems　as　if　we　must　admit
that　a　man's　actions　have　their　determining　principle　in　something
which　is　wholly　out　of　his　power…　namely；　in　the　causality　of　a
Supreme　Being　distinct　from　himself　and　on　whom　his　own　existence
and　the　whole　determination　of　his　causality　are　absolutely　dependent。
In　point　of　fact；　if　a　man's　actions　as　belonging　to　his　modifications
in　time　were　not　merely　modifications　of　him　as　appearance；　but　as　a
thing　in　itself；　freedom　could　not　be　saved。　Man　would　be　a　marionette
or　an　automaton；　like　Vaucanson's；　prepared　and　wound　up　by　the
Supreme　Artist。　Self…consciousness　would　indeed　make　him　a　thinking
automaton；　but　the　consciousness　of　his　own　spontaneity　would　be
mere　delusion　if　this　were　mistaken　for　freedom；　and　it　would
deserve　this　name　only　in　a　parative　sense；　since；　although　the
proximate　determining　causes　of　its　motion　and　a　long　series　of
their　determining　causes　are　internal；　yet　the　last　and　highest　is
found　in　a　foreign　hand。　Therefore　I　do　not　see　how　those　who　still
insist　on　regarding　time　and　space　as　attributes　belonging　to　the
existence　of　things　in　themselves；　can　avoid　admitting　the　fatality　of
actions；　or　if　（like　the　otherwise　acute　Mendelssohn）　they　allow
them　to　be　conditions　necessarily　belonging　to　the　existence　of　finite
and　derived　beings；　but　not　to　that　of　the　infinite　Supreme　Being；　I
do　not　see　on　what　ground　they　can　justify　such　a　distinction；　or；
indeed；　how　they　can　avoid　the　contradiction　that　meets　them；　when
they　hold　that　existence　in　time　is　an　attribute　necessarily　belonging
to　finite　things　in　themselves；　whereas　God　is　the　cause　of　this
existence；　but　cannot　be　the　cause　of　time　（or　space）　itself　（since
this　must　be　presupposed　as　a　necessary　a　priori　condition　of　the
existence　of　things）；　and　consequently　as　regards　the　existence　of
these　things。　His　causality　must　be　subject　to　conditions　and　even
to　the　condition　of　time；　and　this　would　inevitably　bring　in
everything　contradictory　to　the　notions　of　His　infinity　and
independence。　On　the　other　hand；　it　is　quite　easy　for　us　to　draw　the
distinction　between　the　attribute　of　the　divine　existence　of　being
independent　on　all　time…conditions；　and　that　of　a　being　of　the　world
of　sense；　the　distinction　being　that　between　the　existence　of　a
being　in　itself　and　that　of　a　thing　in　appearance。　Hence；　if　this
ideality　of　time　and　space　is　not　adopted；　nothing　remains　but
Spinozism；　in　which　space　and　time　are　essential　attributes　of　the
Supreme　Being　Himself；　and　the　things　dependent　on　Him　（ourselves；
therefore；　included）　are　not　substances；　but　merely　accidents　inhering
in　Him；　since；　if　these　things　as　His　effects　exist　in　time　only；　this
being　the　condition　of　their　existence　in　themselves；　then　the　actions
of　these　beings　must　be　simply　His　actions　which　He　performs　in　some
place　and　time。　Thus；　Spinozism；　in　spite　of　the　absurdity　of　its
fundamental　idea；　argues　more　consistently　than　the　creation　theory
can；　when　beings　assumed　to　be　substances；　and　beings　in　themselves
existing　in　time；　are　regarded　as　effects　of　a　Supreme　Cause；　and
yet　as　not　＇belonging＇　to　Him　and　His　action；　but　as　separate
substances。
　　The　above…mentioned　difficulty　is　resolved　briefly　and　clearly　as
follows：　If　existence　in　time　is　a　mere　sensible　mode　of
representation　belonging　to　thinking　beings　in　the　world　and
consequently　does　not　apply　to　them　as　things　in　themselves；　then
the　creation　of　these　beings　is　a　creation　of　things　in　themselves；
since　the　notion　of　creation　does　not　belong　to　the　sensible　form　of
representation　of　existence　or　to　causality；　but　can　only　be
referred　to　noumena。　Consequently；　when　I　say　of　beings　in　the　world
of　sense　that　they　are　created；　I　so　far　regard　them　as　noumena。　As　it
would　be　a　contradiction；　therefore；　to　say　that　God　is　a　creator　of
appearances；　so　also　it　is　a　contradiction　to　say　that　as　creator　He
is　the　cause　of　actions　in　the　world　of　sense；　and　therefore　as
appearances；　although　He　is　the　cause　of　the　existence　of　the　acting
beings　（which　are　noumena）。　If　now　it　is　possible　to　affirm　freedom　in
spite　of　the　natural　mechanism　of　actions　as　appearances　（by　regarding
existence　in　time　as　something　that　belongs　only　to　appearances；　not
to　things　in　themselves）；　then　the　circumstance　that　the　acting　beings
are　creatures　cannot　make　the　slightest　difference；　since　creation
concerns　their　supersensible　and　not　their　sensible　existence；　and；
therefore；　cannot　be　regarded　as　the　determining　principle　of　the
appearances。　It　would　be　quite　different　if　the　beings　in　the　world　as
things　in　themselves　existed　in　time；　since　in　that　case　the　creator
of　substance　would　be　at　the　same　time　the　author　of　the　whole
mechanism　of　this　substance。
　　Of　so　great　importance　is　the　separation　of　time　（as　well　as
space）　from　the　existence　of　things　in　themselves　which　was　effected
in　the　Critique　of　the　Pure　Speculative　Reason。
　　It　may　be　said　that　the　solution　here　proposed　involves　great
difficulty　in　itself　and　is　scarcely　susceptible　of　a　lucid
exposition。　But　is　any　other　solution　that　has　been　attempted；　or　that
may　be　attempted；　easier　and　more　intelligible？　Rather　might　we　say
that　the　dogmatic　teachers　of　metaphysics　have　shown　more　shrewdness
than　candour　in　keeping　this　difficult　point　out　of　sight　as　much　as
possible；　in　the　hope　that　if　they　said　nothing　about　it；　probably
no　one　would　think　of　it。　If　science　is　to　be　advanced；　all
difficulties　must　be　laid　open；　and　we　must　even　search　for　those　that
are　hidden；　for　every　difficulty　calls　forth　a　remedy；　which　cannot　be
discovered　without　science　gaining　either　in　extent　or　in　exactness；
and　thus　even　obstacles　bee　means　of　increasing　the　thoroughness　of
science。　On　the　other　hand；　if　the　difficulties　are　intentionally
concealed；　or　merely　removed　by　palliatives；　then　sooner　or　later　they
burst　out　into　incurable　mischiefs；　which　bring　science　to　ruin　in
an　absolute　scepticism。
　　Since　it　is；　properly　speaking；　the　notion　of　freedom　alone
amongst　all　the　ideas　of　pure　speculative　reason　that　so　greatly
enlarges　our　knowledge　in　the　sphere　of　the　supersensible；　though　only
of　our　practical　knowledge；　I　ask　myself　why　it　exclusively
possesses　so　great　fertility；　whereas　the　others　only　designate　the
vacant　space　for　possible　beings　of　the　pure　understanding；　but　are
unable　by　any　means　to　define　the　concept　of　them。　I　presently　find
that　as　I　cannot　think　anything　without　a　category；　I　must　first
look　for　a　category　for　the　rational　idea　of　freedom　with　which　I　am
now　concerned；　and　this　is　the　category　of　causality；　and　although
freedom；　a　concept　of　the　reason；　being　a　transcendent　concept；　cannot
have　any　intuition　corresponding　to　it；　yet　the　concept　of　the
understanding…　for　the　synthesis　of　which　the　former　demands　the
unconditioned…　（namely；　the　concept　of　causality）　must　have　a　sensible
intuition　given；　by　which　first　its　objective　reality　is　assured。　Now；
the　categories　are　all　divided　into　two　classes…　the　mathematical；
which　concern　the　unity　of　synthesis　in　the　conception　of　objects；　and
the　dynamical；　which　refer　to　the　unity　of　synthesis　in　the　conception
of　the　existence　of　objects。　The　former　（those　of　magnitude　and
quality）　always　contain　a　synthesis　of　the　homogeneous；　and　it　is
not　possible　to　find　in　this　the　unconditioned　antecedent　to　what　is
given　in　sensible　intuition　as　conditioned　in　space　and　time；　as
this　would　itself　have　to　belong　to　space　and　time；　and　therefore　be
again　still　conditioned。　Whence　it　resulted　in　the　Dialectic　of　Pure
Theoretic　Reason　that　the　opposite　methods　of　attaining　the
unconditioned　and　the　totality　of　the　conditions　were　both　wrong。
The　categories　of　the　second　class　（those　of　causality　and　of　the
necessity　of　a　thing）　did　not　require　this　homogeneity　（of　the
conditioned　and　the　condition　in　synthesis）；　since　here　what　we　have
to　explain　is　not　how　the　intuition　is　pounded　from　a　manifold　in
it；　but　only　how　the　existence　of　the　conditioned　object　corresponding
to　it　is　added　to　the　existence　of　the　condition　（added；　namely；　in
the　understanding　as　connected　therewith）；　and　in　that　case　it　was
allowable　to　suppose　in　the　supersensible　world　the　unconditioned
antecedent　to　the　altogether　conditioned　in　the　world　of　sense　（both
as　regards　the　causal　connection　and　the　contingent　existence　of
things　themselves）；　although　this　unconditioned　remained
indeterminate；　and　to　make　the　synthesis　transcendent。　Hence；　it　was
found　in　the　Dialectic　of　the　Pure　Speculative　Reason　that　the　two
apparently　opposite　methods　of　obtaining　for　the　conditioned　the
unc