the+critique+of+practical+reason-第3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！


to　do　with　the　distinction　of　imperatives　into　problematical；
assertorial；　and　apodeictic。　Similarly　in　the　note　in　which　I　have
pared　the　moral　ideas　of　practical　perfection　in　different
philosophical　schools；　I　have　distinguished　the　idea　of　wisdom　from
that　of　holiness；　although　I　have　stated　that　essentially　and
objectively　they　are　the　same。　But　in　that　place　I　understand　by　the
former　only　that　wisdom　to　which　man　（the　Stoic）　lays　claim；　therefore
I　take　it　subjectively　as　an　attribute　alleged　to　belong　to　man。
（Perhaps　the　expression　virtue；　with　which　also　the　made　great　show；
would　better　mark　the　characteristic　of　his　school。）　The　expression　of
a　postulate　of　pure　practical　reason　might　give　most　occasion　to
misapprehension　in　case　the　reader　confounded　it　with　the
signification　of　the　postulates　in　pure　mathematics；　which　carry
apodeictic　certainty　with　them。　These；　however；　postulate　the
possibility　of　an　action；　the　object　of　which　has　been　previously
recognized　a　priori　in　theory　as　possible；　and　that　with　perfect
certainty。　But　the　former　postulates　the　possibility　of　an　object
itself　（God　and　the　immortality　of　the　soul）　from　apodeictic　practical
laws；　and　therefore　only　for　the　purposes　of　a　practical　reason。
This　certainty　of　the　postulated　possibility　then　is　not　at　all
theoretic；　and　consequently　not　apodeictic；　that　is　to　say；　it　is
not　a　known　necessity　as　regards　the　object；　but　a　necessary
supposition　as　regards　the　subject；　necessary　for　the　obedience　to　its
objective　but　practical　laws。　It　is；　therefore；　merely　a　necessary
hypothesis。　I　could　find　no　better　expression　for　this　rational
necessity；　which　is　subjective；　but　yet　true　and　unconditional。

　　In　this　manner；　then；　the　a　priori　principles　of　two　faculties　of
the　mind；　the　faculty　of　cognition　and　that　of　desire；　would　be
found　and　determined　as　to　the　conditions；　extent；　and　limits　of　their
use；　and　thus　a　sure　foundation　be　paid　for　a　scientific　system　of
philosophy；　both　theoretic　and　practical。
　　Nothing　worse　could　happen　to　these　labours　than　that　anyone
should　make　the　unexpected　discovery　that　there　neither　is；　nor　can
be；　any　a　priori　knowledge　at　all。　But　there　is　no　danger　of　this。
This　would　be　the　same　thing　as　if　one　sought　to　prove　by　reason
that　there　is　no　reason。　For　we　only　say　that　we　know　something　by
reason；　when　we　are　conscious　that　we　could　have　known　it；　even　if
it　had　not　been　given　to　us　in　experience；　hence　rational　knowledge
and　knowledge　a　priori　are　one　and　the　same。　It　is　a　clear
contradiction　to　try　to　extract　necessity　from　a　principle　of
experience　（ex　pumice　aquam）；　and　to　try　by　this　to　give　a　judgement
true　universality　（without　which　there　is　no　rational　inference；　not
even　inference　from　analogy；　which　is　at　least　a　presumed　universality
and　objective　necessity）。　To　substitute　subjective　necessity；　that　is；
custom；　for　objective；　which　exists　only　in　a　priori　judgements；　is　to
deny　to　reason　the　power　of　judging　about　the　object；　i。e。；　of　knowing
it；　and　what　belongs　to　it。　It　implies；　for　example；　that　we　must
not　say　of　something　which　often　or　always　follows　a　certain
antecedent　state　that　we　can　conclude　from　this　to　that　（for　this
would　imply　objective　necessity　and　the　notion　of　an　a　priori
connexion）；　but　only　that　we　may　expect　similar　cases　（just　as　animals
do）；　that　is　that　we　reject　the　notion　of　cause　altogether　as　false
and　a　mere　delusion。　As　to　attempting　to　remedy　this　want　of　objective
and　consequently　universal　validity　by　saying　that　we　can　see　no
ground　for　attributing　any　other　sort　of　knowledge　to　other　rational
beings；　if　this　reasoning　were　valid；　our　ignorance　would　do　more
for　the　enlargement　of　our　knowledge　than　all　our　meditation。　For；
then；　on　this　very　ground　that　we　have　no　knowledge　of　any　other
rational　beings　besides　man；　we　should　have　a　right　to　suppose　them　to
be　of　the　same　nature　as　we　know　ourselves　to　be：　that　is；　we　should
really　know　them。　I　omit　to　mention　that　universal　assent　does　not
prove　the　objective　validity　of　a　judgement　（i。e。；　its　validity　as　a
cognition）；　and　although　this　universal　assent　should　accidentally
happen；　it　could　furnish　no　proof　of　agreement　with　the　object；　on　the
contrary；　it　is　the　objective　validity　which　alone　constitutes　the
basis　of　a　necessary　universal　consent。
　　Hume　would　be　quite　satisfied　with　this　system　of　universal
empiricism；　for；　as　is　well　known；　he　desired　nothing　more　than
that；　instead　of　ascribing　any　objective　meaning　to　the　necessity　in
the　concept　of　cause；　a　merely　subjective　one　should　be　assumed；　viz。；
custom；　in　order　to　deny　that　reason　could　judge　about　God；　freedom；
and　immortality；　and　if　once　his　principles　were　granted；　he　was
certainly　well　able　to　deduce　his　conclusions　therefrom；　with　all
logical　coherence。　But　even　Hume　did　not　make　his　empiricism　so
universal　as　to　include　mathematics。　He　holds　the　principles　of
mathematics　to　be　analytical；　and　if　his　were　correct；　they　would
certainly　be　apodeictic　also：　but　we　could　not　infer　from　this　that
reason　has　the　faculty　of　forming　apodeictic　judgements　in
philosophy　also…　that　is　to　say；　those　which　are　synthetical
judgements；　like　the　judgement　of　causality。　But　if　we　adopt　a
universal　empiricism；　then　mathematics　will　be　included。
　　Now　if　this　science　is　in　contradiction　with　a　reason　that　admits
only　empirical　principles；　as　it　inevitably　is　in　the　antinomy　in
which　mathematics　prove　the　infinite　divisibility　of　space；　which
empiricism　cannot　admit；　then　the　greatest　possible　evidence　of
demonstration　is　in　manifest　contradiction　with　the　alleged
conclusions　from　experience；　and　we　are　driven　to　ask；　like
Cheselden's　blind　patient；　〃Which　deceives　me；　sight　or　touch？〃　（for
empiricism　is　based　on　a　necessity　felt；　rationalism　on　a　necessity
seen）。　And　thus　universal　empiricism　reveals　itself　as　absolute
scepticism。　It　is　erroneous　to　attribute　this　in　such　an　unqualified
sense　to　Hume；*　since　he　left　at　least　one　certain　touchstone　（which
can　only　be　found　in　a　priori　principles）；　although　experience
consists　not　only　of　feelings；　but　also　of　judgements。

　　*Names　that　designate　the　followers　of　a　sect　have　always　been
acpanied　with　much　injustice；　just　as　if　one　said；　〃N　is　an
Idealist。〃　For　although　he　not　only　admits；　but　even　insists；　that　our
ideas　of　external　things　have　actual　objects　of　external　things
corresponding　to　them；　yet　he　holds　that　the　form　of　the　intuition
does　not　depend　on　them　but　on　the　human　mind。

　　However；　as　in　this　philosophical　and　critical　age　such　empiricism
can　scarcely　be　serious；　and　it　is　probably　put　forward　only　as　an
intellectual　exercise　and　for　the　purpose　of　putting　in　a　clearer
light；　by　contrast；　the　necessity　of　rational　a　priori　principles；
we　can　only　be　grateful　to　those　who　employ　themselves　in　this
otherwise　uninstructive　labour。
INTRODUCTION
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　INTRODUCTION。

　　　　　　　Of　the　Idea　of　a　Critique　of　Practical　Reason。

　　The　theoretical　use　of　reason　was　concerned　with　objects　of　the
cognitive　faculty　only；　and　a　critical　examination　of　it　with
reference　to　this　use　applied　properly　only　to　the　pure　faculty　of
cognition；　because　this　raised　the　suspicion；　which　was　afterwards
confirmed；　that　it　might　easily　pass　beyond　its　limits；　and　be　lost
among　unattainable　objects；　or　even　contradictory　notions。　It　is　quite
different　with　the　practical　use　of　reason。　In　this；　reason　is
concerned　with　the　grounds　of　determination　of　the　will；　which　is　a
faculty　either　to　produce　objects　corresponding　to　ideas；　or　to
determine　ourselves　to　the　effecting　of　such　objects　（whether　the
physical　power　is　sufficient　or　not）；　that　is；　to　determine　our
causality。　For　here；　reason　can　at　least　attain　so　far　as　to　determine
the　will；　and　has　always　objective　reality　in　so　far　as　it　is　the
volition　only　that　is　in　question。　The　first　question　here　then　is
whether　pure　reason　of　itself　alone　suffices　to　determine　the　will；　or
whether　it　can　be　a　ground　of　determination　only　as　dependent　on
empirical　conditions。　Now；　here　there　es　in　a　notion　of　causality
justified　by　the　critique　of　the　pure　reason；　although　not　capable
of　being　presented　empirically；　viz。；　that　of　freedom；　and　if　we　can
now　discover　means　of　proving　that　this　property　does　in　fact　belong
to　the　human　will　（and　so　to　the　will　of　all　rational　beings）；　then　it
will　not　only　be　shown　that　pure　reason　can　be　practical；　but　that
it　alone；　and　not　reason　empirically　limited；　is　indubitably
practical；　consequently；　we　shall　have　to　make　a　critical　examination；
not　of　pure　practical　reason；　but　only　of　practical　reason
generally。　For　when　once　pure　reason　is　shown　to　exist；　it　needs　no
critical　examination。　For　reason　itself　contains　the　standard　for
the　critical　examination　of　every　use　of　it。　The　critique；　then；　of
practical　reason　generally　is　bound　to　prevent　the　empirically
conditioned　reason　from　claiming　exclusively　to　furnish　the　ground
of　determination　of　the　will。　If　it　is　proved　that　there　is　a
＇practical＇　reason；　its　employment　is　alone　immanent；　the
empirically　conditioned　use；　which　claims　supremacy；　is　on　the
contrary　transcendent　and　expresses　itself　in　demands　and　precepts
which　go　quite　beyond　its　sphere。　This　is　just　the　opposite　of　what
might　be　said　of　pure　reason　in　its　speculative　employment。
　　However；　as　it　is　still　pure　reason；　the　knowledge　of　which　is
here　the　foundation　of　its　practical　employment；　the　general　outline
of　the　classification　of　a　critique　of　practical　reason　must　be
arranged　in　accordance　with　that　of　the　speculative。　We　must；　then；
have　the　Elements　and　the　Methodology　of　it；　and　in　the　former　an
Analytic　as　the　rule　of　truth；　and　a　Dialectic　as　the　exposition　and
dissolution　of　the　illusion　in　the　judgements　of　practical　reason。　But
the　order　in　the　subdivision　of　the　Analytic　will　be　the　reverse　of
that　in　the　critique　of　the　pure　speculative　reason。　For；　in　the
present　case；　we　shall　mence　with　the　principles　and　proceed　to　the
concepts；　and　only　then；　if　possible；　to　the　senses；　whereas　in　the
case　of　the　speculative　reason　we　began　with　the　senses　and　had　t