the+critique+of+practical+reason-第31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！


in　this　by　practical　reason；　further　than　that　these　concepts　are　real
and　actually　have　their　（possible）　objects；　and　nothing　in　the　way
of　intuition　of　them　is　given　thereby　（which　indeed　could　not　be
demanded）；　hence　the　admission　of　this　reality　does　not　render　any
synthetical　proposition　possible。　Consequently；　this　discovery　does
not　in　the　least　help　us　to　extend　this　knowledge　of　ours　in　a
speculative　point　of　view；　although　it　does　in　respect　of　the
practical　employment　of　pure　reason。　The　above　three　ideas　of
speculative　reason　are　still　in　themselves　not　cognitions；　they　are
however　（transcendent）　thoughts；　in　which　there　is　nothing　impossible。
Now；　by　help　of　an　apodeictic　practical　law；　being　necessary
conditions　of　that　which　it　mands　to　be　made　an　object；　they
acquire　objective　reality；　that　is；　we　learn　from　it　that　they　have
objects；　without　being　able　to　point　out　how　the　conception　of　them　is
related　to　an　object；　and　this；　too；　is　still　not　a　cognition　of　these
objects；　for　we　cannot　thereby　form　any　synthetical　judgement　about
them；　nor　determine　their　application　theoretically；　consequently；
we　can　make　no　theoretical　rational　use　of　them　at　all；　in　which　use
all　speculative　knowledge　of　reason　consists。　Nevertheless；　the
theoretical　knowledge；　not　indeed　of　these　objects；　but　of　reason
generally；　is　so　far　enlarged　by　this；　that　by　the　practical
postulates　objects　were　given　to　those　ideas；　a　merely　problematical
thought　having　by　this　means　first　acquired　objective　reality。　There
is　therefore　no　extension　of　the　knowledge　of　given　supersensible
objects；　but　an　extension　of　theoretical　reason　and　of　its　knowledge
in　respect　of　the　supersensible　generally；　inasmuch　as　it　is　pelled
to　admit　that　there　are　such　objects；　although　it　is　not　able　to
define　them　more　closely；　so　as　itself　to　extend　this　knowledge　of　the
objects　（which　have　now　been　given　it　on　practical　grounds；　and　only
for　practical　use）。　For　this　accession；　then；　pure　theoretical　reason；
for　which　all　those　ideas　are　transcendent　and　without　object；　has
simply　to　thank　its　practical　faculty。　In　this　they　bee　immanent
and　constitutive；　being　the　source　of　the　possibility　of　realizing　the
necessary　object　of　pure　practical　reason　（the　summum　bonum）；
whereas　apart　from　this　they　are　transcendent；　and　merely　regulative
principles　of　speculative　reason；　which　do　not　require　it　to　assume
a　new　object　beyond　experience；　but　only　to　bring　its　use　in
experience　nearer　to　pleteness。　But　when　once　reason　is　in
possession　of　this　accession；　it　will　go　to　work　with　these　ideas　as
speculative　reason　（properly　only　to　assure　the　certainty　of　its
practical　use）　in　a　negative　manner：　that　is；　not　extending　but
clearing　up　its　knowledge　so　as　on　one　side　to　keep　off
anthropomorphism；　as　the　source　of　superstition；　or　seeming
extension　of　these　conceptions　by　supposed　experience；　and　on　the
other　side　fanaticism；　which　promises　the　same　by　means　of
supersensible　intuition　or　feelings　of　the　like　kind。　All　these　are
hindrances　to　the　practical　use　of　pure　reason；　so　that　the　removal　of
them　may　certainly　be　considered　an　extension　of　our　knowledge　in　a
practical　point　of　view；　without　contradicting　the　admission　that
for　speculative　purposes　reason　has　not　in　the　least　gained　by　this。
　　Every　employment　of　reason　in　respect　of　an　object　requires　pure
concepts　of　the　understanding　（categories）；　without　which　no　object
can　be　conceived。　These　can　be　applied　to　the　theoretical　employment
of　reason；　i。e。；　to　that　kind　of　knowledge；　only　in　case　an
intuition　（which　is　always　sensible）　is　taken　as　a　basis；　and
therefore　merely　in　order　to　conceive　by　means　of…　them　an　object　of
possible　experience。　Now　here　what　have　to　be　thought　by　means　of
the　categories　in　order　to　be　known　are　ideas　of　reason；　which
cannot　be　given　in　any　experience。　Only　we　are　not　here　concerned　with
the　theoretical　knowledge　of　the　objects　of　these　ideas；　but　only　with
this；　whether　they　have　objects　at　all。　This　reality　is　supplied　by
pure　practical　reason；　and　theoretical　reason　has　nothing　further　to
do　in　this　but　to　think　those　objects　by　means　of　categories。　This；　as
we　have　elsewhere　clearly　shown；　can　be　done　well　enough　without
needing　any　intuition　（either　sensible　or　supersensible）　because　the
categories　have　their　seat　and　origin　in　the　pure　understanding；
simply　as　the　faculty　of　thought；　before　and　independently　of　any
intuition；　and　they　always　only　signify　an　object　in　general；　no
matter　in　what　way　it　may　be　given　to　us。　Now　when　the　categories
are　to　be　applied　to　these　ideas；　it　is　not　possible　to　give　them
any　object　in　intuition；　but　that　such　an　object　actually　exists；
and　consequently　that　the　category　as　a　mere　form　of　thought　is　here
not　empty　but　has　significance；　this　is　sufficiently　assured　them　by
an　object　which　practical　reason　presents　beyond　doubt　in　the
concept　of　the　summum　bonum；　the　reality　of　the　conceptions　which
are　required　for　the　possibility　of　the　summum　bonum；　without；
however；　effecting　by　this　accession　the　least　extension　of　our
knowledge　on　theoretical　principles。

　　When　these　ideas　of　God；　of　an　intelligible　world　（the　kingdom　of
God）；　and　of　immortality　are　further　determined　by　predicates　taken
from　our　own　nature；　we　must　not　regard　this　determination　as　a
sensualizing　of　those　pure　rational　ideas　（anthropomorphism）；　nor　as　a
transcendent　knowledge　of　supersensible　objects；　for　these
predicates　are　no　others　than　understanding　and　will；　considered　too
in　the　relation　to　each　other　in　which　they　must　be　conceived　in　the
moral　law；　and　therefore；　only　so　far　as　a　pure　practical　use　is
made　of　them。　As　to　all　the　rest　that　belongs　to　these　conceptions
psychologically；　that　is；　so　far　as　we　observe　these　faculties　of　ours
empirically　in　their　exercise　（e。g。；　that　the　understanding　of　man
is　discursive；　and　its　notions　therefore　not　intuitions　but
thoughts；　that　these　follow　one　another　in　time；　that　his　will　has　its
satisfaction　always　dependent　on　the　existence　of　its　object；　etc。；
which　cannot　be　the　case　in　the　Supreme　Being）；　from　all　this　we
abstract　in　that　case；　and　then　there　remains　of　the　notions　by
which　we　conceive　a　pure　intelligence　nothing　more　than　just　what　is
required　for　the　possibility　of　conceiving　a　moral　law。　There　is
then　a　knowledge　of　God　indeed；　but　only　for　practical　purposes；
and；　if　we　attempt　to　extend　it　to　a　theoretical　knowledge；　we　find　an
understanding　that　has　intuitions；　not　thoughts；　a　will　that　is
directed　to　objects　on　the　existence　of　which　its　satisfaction　does
not　in　the　least　depend　（not　to　mention　the　transcendental　predicates；
as；　for　example；　a　magnitude　of　existence；　that　is　duration；　which；
however；　is　not　in　time；　the　only　possible　means　we　have　of　conceiving
existence　as　magnitude）。　Now　these　are　all　attributes　of　which　we
can　form　no　conception　that　would　help　to　the　knowledge　of　the　object；
and　we　learn　from　this　that　they　can　never　be　used　for　a　theory　of
supersensible　beings；　so　that　on　this　side　they　are　quite　incapable　of
being　the　foundation　of　a　speculative　knowledge；　and　their　use　is
limited　simply　to　the　practice　of　the　moral　law。
　　This　last　is　so　obvious；　and　can　be　proved　so　clearly　by　fact；
that　we　may　confidently　challenge　all　pretended　natural　theologians　（a
singular　name）*　to　specify　（over　and　above　the　merely　ontological
predicates）　one　single　attribute；　whether　of　the　understanding　or　of
the　will；　determining　this　object　of　theirs；　of　which　we　could　not
show　incontrovertibly　that；　if　we　abstract　from　it　everything
anthropomorphic；　nothing　would　remain　to　us　but　the　mere　word；　without
our　being　able　to　connect　with　it　the　smallest　notion　by　which　we
could　hope　for　an　extension　of　theoretical　knowledge。　But　as　to　the
practical；　there　still　remains　to　us　of　the　attributes　of
understanding　and　will　the　conception　of　a　relation　to　which　objective
reality　is　given　by　the　practical　law　（which　determines　a　priori
precisely　this　relation　of　the　understanding　to　the　will）。　When　once
this　is　done；　then　reality　is　given　to　the　conception　of　the　object　of
a　will　morally　determined　（the　conception　of　the　summum　bonum）；　and
with　it　to　the　conditions　of　its　possibility；　the　ideas　of　God；
freedom；　and　immortality；　but　always　only　relatively　to　the　practice
of　the　moral　law　（and　not　for　any　speculative　purpose）。

　　*Learning　is　properly　only　the　whole　content　of　the　historical
sciences。　Consequently　it　is　only　the　teacher　of　revealed　theology
that　can　be　called　a　learned　theologian。　If；　however；　we　choose　to
call　a　man　learned　who　is　in　possession　of　the　rational　sciences
（mathematics　and　philosophy）；　although　even　this　would　be　contrary
to　the　signification　of　the　word　（which　always　counts　as　learning　only
that　which　one　must　be　〃learned〃　and　which；　therefore；　he　cannot
discover　of　himself　by　reason）；　even　in　that　case　the　philosopher
would　make　too　poor　a　figure　with　his　knowledge　of　God　as　a　positive
science　to　let　himself　be　called　on　that　account　a　learned　man。

　　According　to　these　remarks　it　is　now　easy　to　find　the　answer　to
the　weighty　question　whether　the　notion　of　God　is　one　belonging　to
physics　（and　therefore　also　to　metaphysics；　which　contains　the　pure
a　priori　principles　of　the　former　in　their　universal　import）　or　to
morals。　If　we　have　recourse　to　God　as　the　Author　of　all　things；　in
order　to　explain　the　arrangements　of　nature　or　its　changes；　this　is　at
least　not　a　physical　explanation；　and　is　a　plete　confession　that
our　philosophy　has　e　to　an　end；　since　we　are　obliged　to　assume
something　of　which　in　itself　we　have　otherwise　no　conception；　in　order
to　be　able　to　frame　a　conception　of　the　possibility　of　what　we　see
before　our　eyes。　Metaphysics；　however；　cannot　enable　us　to　attain　by
certain　inference　from　the　knowledge　of　this　world　to　the　conception
of　God　and　to　the　proof　of　His　existence；　for　this　reason；　that　in
order　to　say　that　this　world　could　be　produced　only　by　a　God
（according　to　the　conception　implied　by　this　word）　we　should　know　this
world　as　the　most　perfect　whole　possible；　and　for　this　purpose
should　also　know　all　possible　worlds