the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第17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！


series　which　is　only　of　one　dimension；　and　we　conclude　from　the
properties　of　this　line　as　to　all　the　properties　of　time；　with　this
single　exception；　that　the　parts　of　the　line　are　coexistent；　whilst
those　of　time　are　successive。　From　this　it　is　clear　also　that　the
representation　of　time　is　itself　an　intuition；　because　all　its
relations　can　be　expressed　in　an　external　intuition。
　　（c）　Time　is　the　formal　condition　a　priori　of　all　phenomena
whatsoever。　Space；　as　the　pure　form　of　external　intuition；　is
limited　as　a　condition　a　priori　to　external　phenomena　alone。　On　the
other　hand；　because　all　representations；　whether　they　have　or　have　not
external　things　for　their　objects；　still　in　themselves；　as
determinations　of　the　mind；　belong　to　our　internal　state；　and
because　this　internal　state　is　subject　to　the　formal　condition　of
the　internal　intuition；　that　is；　to　time…　time　is　a　condition　a　priori
of　all　phenomena　whatsoever…　the　immediate　condition　of　all
internal；　and　thereby　the　mediate　condition　of　all　external　phenomena。
If　I　can　say　a　priori；　〃All　outward　phenomena　are　in　space；　and
determined　a　priori　according　to　the　relations　of　space；〃　I　can
also；　from　the　principle　of　the　internal　sense；　affirm　universally；
〃All　phenomena　in　general；　that　is；　all　objects　of　the　senses；　are
in　time　and　stand　necessarily　in　relations　of　time。〃
　　If　we　abstract　our　internal　intuition　of　ourselves　and　all
external　intuitions；　possible　only　by　virtue　of　this　internal
intuition　and　presented　to　us　by　our　faculty　of　representation；　and
consequently　take　objects　as　they　are　in　themselves；　then　time　is
nothing。　It　is　only　of　objective　validity　in　regard　to　phenomena；
because　these　are　things　which　we　regard　as　objects　of　our　senses。
It　no　longer　objective　we；　make　abstraction　of　the　sensuousness　of　our
intuition；　in　other　words；　of　that　mode　of　representation　which　is
peculiar　to　us；　and　speak　of　things　in　general。　Time　is　therefore
merely　a　subjective　condition　of　our　（human）　intuition　（which　is
always　sensuous；　that　is；　so　far　as　we　are　affected　by　objects）；　and
in　itself；　independently　of　the　mind　or　subject；　is　nothing。
Nevertheless；　in　respect　of　all　phenomena；　consequently　of　all
things　which　e　within　the　sphere　of　our　experience；　it　is
necessarily　objective。　We　cannot　say；　〃All　things　are　in　time；〃
because　in　this　conception　of　things　in　general；　we　abstract　and
make　no　mention　of　any　sort　of　intuition　of　things。　But　this　is　the
proper　condition　under　which　time　belongs　to　our　representation　of
objects。　If　we　add　the　condition　to　the　conception；　and　say；　〃All
things；　as　phenomena；　that　is；　objects　of　sensuous　intuition；　are　in
time；〃　then　the　proposition　has　its　sound　objective　validity　and
universality　a　priori。
　　What　we　have　now　set　forth　teaches；　therefore；　the　empirical　reality
of　time；　that　is；　its　objective　validity　in　reference　to　all　objects
which　can　ever　be　presented　to　our　senses。　And　as　our　intuition　is
always　sensuous；　no　object　ever　can　be　presented　to　us　in
experience；　which　does　not　e　under　the　conditions　of　time。　On　the
other　hand；　we　deny　to　time　all　claim　to　absolute　reality；　that　is；　we
deny　that　it；　without　having　regard　to　the　form　of　our　sensuous
intuition；　absolutely　inheres　in　things　as　a　condition　or　property。
Such　properties　as　belong　to　objects　as　things　in　themselves　never　can
be　presented　to　us　through　the　medium　of　the　senses。　Herein
consists；　therefore；　the　transcendental　ideality　of　time；　according　to
which；　if　we　abstract　the　subjective　conditions　of　sensuous　intuition；
it　is　nothing；　and　cannot　be　reckoned　as　subsisting　or　inhering　in
objects　as　things　in　themselves；　independently　of　its　relation　to
our　intuition。　this　ideality；　like　that　of　space；　is　not　to　be
proved　or　illustrated　by　fallacious　analogies　with　sensations；　for
this　reason…　that　in　such　arguments　or　illustrations；　we　make　the
presupposition　that　the　phenomenon；　in　which　such　and　such
predicates　inhere；　has　objective　reality；　while　in　this　case　we　can
only　find　such　an　objective　reality　as　is　itself　empirical；　that　is；
regards　the　object　as　a　mere　phenomenon。　In　reference　to　this　subject；
see　the　remark　in　Section　I　（SS　4）

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SS　8　Elucidation。

　　Against　this　theory；　which　grants　empirical　reality　to　time；　but
denies　to　it　absolute　and　transcendental　reality；　I　have　heard　from
intelligent　men　an　objection　so　unanimously　urged　that　I　conclude　that
it　must　naturally　present　itself　to　every　reader　to　whom　these
considerations　are　novel。　It　runs　thus：　〃Changes　are　real〃　（this　the
continual　change　in　our　own　representations　demonstrates；　even
though　the　existence　of　all　external　phenomena；　together　with　their
changes；　is　denied）。　Now；　changes　are　only　possible　in　time；　and
therefore　time　must　be　something　real。　But　there　is　no　difficulty　in
answering　this。　I　grant　the　whole　argument。　Time；　no　doubt；　is
something　real；　that　is；　it　is　the　real　form　of　our　internal
intuition。　It　therefore　has　subjective　reality；　in　reference　to　our
internal　experience；　that　is；　I　have　really　the　representation　of　time
and　of　my　determinations　therein。　Time；　therefore；　is　not　to　be
regarded　as　an　object；　but　as　the　mode　of　representation　of　myself
as　an　object。　But　if　I　could　intuite　myself；　or　be　intuited　by　another
being；　without　this　condition　of　sensibility；　then　those　very
determinations　which　we　now　represent　to　ourselves　as　changes；　would
present　to　us　a　knowledge　in　which　the　representation　of　time；　and
consequently　of　change；　would　not　appear。　The　empirical　reality　of
time；　therefore；　remains；　as　the　condition　of　all　our　experience。
But　absolute　reality；　according　to　what　has　been　said　above；　cannot　be
granted　it。　Time　is　nothing　but　the　form　of　our　internal　intuition。*
If　we　take　away　from　it　the　special　condition　of　our　sensibility；
the　conception　of　time　also　vanishes；　and　it　inheres　not　in　the
objects　themselves；　but　solely　in　the　subject　（or　mind）　which　intuites
them。

　　*I　can　indeed　say　〃my　representations　follow　one　another；　or　are
successive〃；　but　this　means　only　that　we　are　conscious　of　them　as　in　a
succession；　that　is；　according　to　the　form　of　the　internal　sense。
Time；　therefore；　is　not　a　thing　in　itself；　nor　is　it　any　objective
determination　pertaining　to；　or　inherent　in　things。

　　But　the　reason　why　this　objection　is　so　unanimously　brought
against　our　doctrine　of　time；　and　that　too　by　disputants　who　cannot
start　any　intelligible　arguments　against　the　doctrine　of　the
ideality　of　space；　is　this…　they　have　no　hope　of　demonstrating
apodeictically　the　absolute　reality　of　space；　because　the　doctrine
of　idealism　is　against　them；　according　to　which　the　reality　of
external　objects　is　not　capable　of　any　strict　proof。　On　the　other
hand；　the　reality　of　the　object　of　our　internal　sense　（that　is；　myself
and　my　internal　state）　is　clear　immediately　through　consciousness。　The
former…　external　objects　in　space…　might　be　a　mere　delusion；　but　the
latter…　the　object　of　my　internal　perception…　is　undeniably　real。　They
do　not；　however；　reflect　that　both；　without　question　of　their
reality　as　representations；　belong　only　to　the　genus　phenomenon；　which
has　always　two　aspects；　the　one；　the　object　considered　as　a　thing　in
itself；　without　regard　to　the　mode　of　intuiting　it；　and　the　nature
of　which　remains　for　this　very　reason　problematical；　the　other；　the
form　of　our　intuition　of　the　object；　which　must　be　sought　not　in　the
object　as　a　thing　in　itself；　but　in　the　subject　to　which　it　appears…
which　form　of　intuition　nevertheless　belongs　really　and　necessarily　to
the　phenomenal　object。
　　Time　and　space　are；　therefore；　two　sources　of　knowledge；　from　which；
a　priori；　various　synthetical　cognitions　can　be　drawn。　Of　this　we　find
a　striking　example　in　the　cognitions　of　space　and　its　relations；　which
form　the　foundation　of　pure　mathematics。　They　are　the　two　pure　forms
of　all　intuitions；　and　thereby　make　synthetical　propositions　a
priori　possible。　But　these　sources　of　knowledge　being　merely
conditions　of　our　sensibility；　do　therefore；　and　as　such；　strictly
determine　their　own　range　and　purpose；　in　that　they　do　not　and
cannot　present　objects　as　thin