the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第123章

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！


be　deduced　from　higher　and　more　general　conceptions；　must　be　sought
for；　is　a　scholastic　maxim　or　logical　principle；　without　which
reason　could　not　be　employed　by　us。　For　we　can　infer　the　particular
from　the　general；　only　in　so　far　as　general　properties　of　things
constitute　the　foundation　upon　which　the　particular　rest。
　　That　the　same　unity　exists　in　nature　is　presupposed　by
philosophers　in　the　well…known　scholastic　maxim；　which　forbids　us
unnecessarily　to　augment　the　number　of　entities　or　principles　（entia
praeter　necessitatem　non　esse　multiplicanda）。　This　maxim　asserts
that　nature　herself　assists　in　the　establishment　of　this　unity　of
reason；　and　that　the　seemingly　infinite　diversity　of　phenomena
should　not　deter　us　from　the　expectation　of　discovering　beneath　this
diversity　a　unity　of　fundamental　properties；　of　which　the　aforesaid
variety　is　but　a　more　or　less　determined　form。　This　unity；　although
a　mere　idea；　thinkers　have　found　it　necessary　rather　to　moderate　the
desire　than　to　encourage　it。　It　was　considered　a　great　step　when
chemists　were　able　to　reduce　all　salts　to　two　main　genera…　acids　and
alkalis；　and　they　regard　this　difference　as　itself　a　mere　variety；
or　different　manifestation　of　one　and　the　same　fundamental　material。
The　different　kinds　of　earths　（stones　and　even　metals）　chemists　have
endeavoured　to　reduce　to　three；　and　afterwards　to　two；　but　still；
not　content　with　this　advance；　they　cannot　but　think　that　behind　these
diversities　there　lurks　but　one　genus…　nay；　that　even　salts　and　earths
have　a　mon　principle。　It　might　be　conjectured　that　this　is　merely
an　economical　plan　of　reason；　for　the　purpose　of　sparing　itself
trouble；　and　an　attempt　of　a　purely　hypothetical　character；　which；
when　successful；　gives　an　appearance　of　probability　to　the　principle
of　explanation　employed　by　the　reason。　But　a　selfish　purpose　of　this
kind　is　easily　to　be　distinguished　from　the　idea；　according　to　which
every　one　presupposes　that　this　unity　is　in　accordance　with　the　laws
of　nature；　and　that　reason　does　not　in　this　case　request；　but
requires；　although　we　are　quite　unable　to　determine　the　proper
limits　of　this　unity。
　　If　the　diversity　existing　in　phenomena…　a　diversity　not　of　form　（for
in　this　they　may　be　similar）　but　of　content…　were　so　great　that　the
subtlest　human　reason　could　never　by　parison　discover　in　them　the
least　similarity　（which　is　not　impossible）；　in　this　case　the　logical
law　of　genera　would　be　without　foundation；　the　conception　of　a
genus；　nay；　all　general　conceptions　would　be　impossible；　and　the
faculty　of　the　understanding；　the　exercise　of　which　is　restricted　to
the　world　of　conceptions；　could　not　exist。　The　logical　principle　of
genera；　accordingly；　if　it　is　to　be　applied　to　nature　（by　which　I　mean
objects　presented　to　our　senses）；　presupposes　a　transcendental
principle。　In　accordance　with　this　principle；　homogeneity　is
necessarily　presupposed　in　the　variety　of　phenomena　（although　we　are
unable　to　determine　a　priori　the　degree　of　this　homogeneity）；
because　without　it　no　empirical　conceptions；　and　consequently　no
experience；　would　be　possible。
　　The　logical　principle　of　genera；　which　demands　identity　in
phenomena；　is　balanced　by　another　principle…　that　of　species；　which
requires　variety　and　diversity　in　things；　notwithstanding　their
accordance　in　the　same　genus；　and　directs　the　understanding　to
attend　to　the　one　no　less　than　to　the　other。　This　principle　（of　the
faculty　of　distinction）　acts　as　a　check　upon　the　reason　and　reason
exhibits　in　this　respect　a　double　and　conflicting　interest…　on　the　one
hand；　the　interest　in　the　extent　（the　interest　of　generality）　in
relation　to　genera；　on　the　other；　that　of　the　content　（the　interest　of
individuality）　in　relation　to　the　variety　of　species。　In　the　former
case；　the　understanding　cogitates　more　under　its　conceptions；　in　the
latter　it　cogitates　more　in　them。　This　distinction　manifests　itself
likewise　in　the　habits　of　thought　peculiar　to　natural　philosophers；
some　of　whom…　the　remarkably　speculative　heads…　may　be　said　to　be
hostile　to　heterogeneity　in　phenomena；　and　have　their　eyes　always
fixed　on　the　unity　of　genera；　while　others…　with　a　strong　empirical
tendency…　aim　unceasingly　at　the　analysis　of　phenomena；　and　almost
destroy　in　us　the　hope　of　ever　being　able　to　estimate　the　character　of
these　according　to　general　principles。
　　The　latter　mode　of　thought　is　evidently　based　upon　a　logical
principle；　the　aim　of　which　is　the　systematic　pleteness　of　all
cognitions。　This　principle　authorizes　me；　beginning　at　the　genus；　to
descend　to　the　various　and　diverse　contained　under　it；　and　in　this　way
extension；　as　in　the　former　case　unity；　is　assured　to　the　system。
For　if　we　merely　examine　the　sphere　of　the　conception　which
indicates　a　genus；　we　cannot　discover　how　far　it　is　possible　to
proceed　in　the　division　of　that　sphere；　just　as　it　is　impossible；　from
the　consideration　of　the　space　occupied　by　matter；　to　determine　how
far　we　can　proceed　in　the　division　of　it。　Hence　every　genus　must
contain　different　species；　and　these　again　different　subspecies；　and
as　each　of　the　latter　must　itself　contain　a　sphere　（must　be　of　a
certain　extent；　as　a　conceptus　munis）；　reason　demands　that　no
species　or　sub…species　is　to　be　considered　as　the　lowest　possible。　For
a　species　or　sub…species；　being　always　a　conception；　which　contains
only　what　is　mon　to　a　number　of　different　things；　does　not
pletely　determine　any　individual　thing；　or　relate　immediately　to
it；　and　must　consequently　contain　other　conceptions；　that　is；　other
sub…species　under　it。　This　law　of　specification　may　be　thus　expressed：
entium　varietates　non　temere　sunt　minuendae。
　　But　it　is　easy　to　see　that　this　logical　law　would　likewise　be
without　sense　or　application；　were　it　not　based　upon　a
transcendental　law　of　specification；　which　certainly　does　not
require　that　the　differences　existing　phenomena　should　be　infinite
in　number；　for　the　logical　principle；　which　merely　maintains　the
indeterminateness　of　the　logical　sphere　of　a　conception；　in　relation
to　its　possible　division；　does　not　authorize　this　statement；　while
it　does　impose　upon　the　understanding　the　duty　of　searching　for
subspecies　to　every　species；　and　minor　differences　in　every
difference。　For；　were　there　no　lower　conceptions；　neither　could
there　be　any　higher。　Now　the　understanding　cognizes　only　by　means　of
conceptions；　consequently；　how　far　soever　it　may　proceed　in
division；　never　by　mere　intuition；　but　always　by　lower　and　lower
conceptions。　The　cognition　of　phenomena　in　their　plete
determination　（which　is　possible　only　by　means　of　the　understanding）
requires　an　unceasingly　continued　specification　of　conceptions；　and
a　progression　to　ever　smaller　differences；　of　which　abstraction　bad
been　made　in　the　conception　of　the　species；　and　still　more　in　that
of　the　genus。
　　This　law　of　specification　cannot　be　deduced　from　experience；　it
can　never　present　us　with　a　principle　of　so　universal　an
application。　Empirical　specification　very　soon　stops　in　its
distinction　of　diversities；　and　requires　the　guidance　of　the
transcendental　law；　as　a　principle　of　the　reason…　a　law　which
imposes　on　us　the　necessity　of　never　ceasing　in　our　search　for
differences；　even　although　these　may　not　present　themselves　to　the
senses。　That　absorbent　earths　are　of　different　kinds　could　only　be
discovered　by　obeying　the　anticipatory　law　of　reason；　which　imposes
upon　the　understanding　the　task　of　discovering　the　differences
existing　between　these　earths；　and　supposes　that　nature　is　richer　in
substances　than　our　senses　would　indicate。　The　faculty　of　the
understanding　belongs　to　us　just　as　much　under　the　presupposition　of
differences　in　the　objects　of　nature；　as　under　the　condition　that
these　objects　are　homogeneous；　because　we　could　not　possess
conceptions；　nor　make　any　use　of　our　understanding；　were　not　the
phenomena　included　under　these　conceptions　in　some　respects
dissimilar；　as　well　as　similar；　in　their　character。
　　Reason　thus　prepares　the　sphere　of　the　understanding　for　the
operations　of　this　faculty：　1。　By　the　principle　of　the　homogeneity
of　the　diverse　in　higher　genera；　2。　By　the　principle　of　the　variet