the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第40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！


valid　of　things　as　they　are；　and　not；　as　the　schemata　represent
them；　merely　as　they　appear；　and　consequently　the　categories　must　have
a　significance　far　more　extended；　and　wholly　independent　of　all
schemata。　In　truth；　there　does　always　remain　to　the　pure　conceptions
of　the　understanding；　after　abstracting　every　sensuous　condition；　a
value　and　significance；　which　is；　however；　merely　logical。　But　in　this
case；　no　object　is　given　them；　and　therefore　they　have　no　meaning
sufficient　to　afford　us　a　conception　of　an　object。　The　notion　of
substance；　for　example；　if　we　leave　out　the　sensuous　determination
of　permanence；　would　mean　nothing　more　than　a　something　which　can　be
cogitated　as　subject；　without　the　possibility　of　being　a
predicate　to　anything　else。　Of　this　representation　I　can　make　nothing；
inasmuch　as　it　does　not　indicate　to　me　what　determinations　the　thing
possesses　which　must　thus　be　valid　as　premier　subject。　Consequently；
the　categories；　without　schemata　are　merely　functions　of　the
understanding　for　the　production　of　conceptions；　but　do　not
represent　any　object。　This　significance　they　derive　from
sensibility；　which　at　the　same　time　realizes　the　understanding　and
restricts　it。
　　　CHAPTER　II。　System　of　all　Principles　of　the　Pure　Understanding。

　　In　the　foregoing　chapter　we　have　merely　considered　the　general
conditions　under　which　alone　the　transcendental　faculty　of　judgement
is　justified　in　using　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding　for
synthetical　judgements。　Our　duty　at　present　is　to　exhibit　in
systematic　connection　those　judgements　which　the　understanding
really　produces　a　priori。　For　this　purpose；　our　table　of　the
categories　will　certainly　afford　us　the　natural　and　safe　guidance。　For
it　is　precisely　the　categories　whose　application　to　possible
experience　must　constitute　all　pure　a　priori　cognition　of　the
understanding；　and　the　relation　of　which　to　sensibility　will；　on
that　very　account；　present　us　with　a　plete　and　systematic　catalogue
of　all　the　transcendental　principles　of　the　use　of　the　understanding。
　　Principles　a　priori　are　so　called；　not　merely　because　they　contain
in　themselves　the　grounds　of　other　judgements；　but　also　because　they
themselves　are　not　grounded　in　higher　and　more　general　cognitions。
This　peculiarity；　however；　does　not　raise　them　altogether　above　the
need　of　a　proof。　For　although　there　could　be　found　no　higher
cognition；　and　therefore　no　objective　proof；　and　although　such　a
principle　rather　serves　as　the　foundation　for　all　cognition　of　the
object；　this　by　no　means　hinders　us　from　drawing　a　proof　from　the
subjective　sources　of　the　possibility　of　the　cognition　of　an　object。
Such　a　proof　is　necessary；　moreover；　because　without　it　the
principle　might　be　liable　to　the　imputation　of　being　a　mere　gratuitous
assertion。
　　In　the　second　place；　we　shall　limit　our　investigations　to　those
principles　which　relate　to　the　categories。　For　as　to　the　principles　of
transcendental　aesthetic；　according　to　which　space　and　time　are　the
conditions　of　the　possibility　of　things　as　phenomena；　as　also　the
restriction　of　these　principles；　namely；　that　they　cannot　be　applied
to　objects　as　things　in　themselves…　these；　of　course；　do　not　fall
within　the　scope　of　our　present　inquiry。　In　like　manner；　the
principles　of　mathematical　science　form　no　part　of　this　system；
because　they　are　all　drawn　from　intuition；　and　not　from　the　pure
conception　of　the　understanding。　The　possibility　of　these
principles；　however；　will　necessarily　be　considered　here；　inasmuch
as　they　are　synthetical　judgements　a　priori；　not　indeed　for　the
purpose　of　proving　their　accuracy　and　apodeictic　certainty；　which　is
unnecessary；　but　merely　to　render　conceivable　and　deduce　the
possibility　of　such　evident　a　priori　cognitions。
　　But　we　shall　have　also　to　speak　of　the　principle　of　analytical
judgements；　in　opposition　to　synthetical　judgements；　which　is　the
proper　subject　of　our　inquiries；　because　this　very　opposition　will
free　the　theory　of　the　latter　from　all　ambiguity；　and　place　it　clearly
before　our　eyes　in　its　true　nature。

　　　　　　　　SYSTEM　OF　THE　PRINCIPLES　OF　THE　PURE　UNDERSTANDING。

　　SECTION　I。　Of　the　Supreme　Principle　of　all　Analytical　Judgements。

　　Whatever　may　be　the　content　of　our　cognition；　and　in　whatever　manner
our　cognition　may　be　related　to　its　object；　the　universal；　although
only　negative　conditions　of　all　our　judgements　is　that　they　do　not
contradict　themselves；　otherwise　these　judgements　are　in　themselves
（even　without　respect　to　the　object）　nothing。　But　although　there　may
exist　no　contradiction　in　our　judgement；　it　may　nevertheless　connect
conceptions　in　such　a　manner　that　they　do　not　correspond　to　the
object；　or　without　any　grounds　either　a　priori　or　a　posteriori　for
arriving　at　such　a　judgement；　and　thus；　without　being
self…contradictory；　a　judgement　may　nevertheless　be　either　false　or
groundless。
　　Now；　the　proposition：　〃No　subject　can　have　a　predicate　that
contradicts　it；〃　is　called　the　principle　of　contradiction；　and　is　a
universal　but　purely　negative　criterion　of　all　truth。　But　it　belongs
to　logic　alone；　because　it　is　valid　of　cognitions；　merely　as
cognitions　and　without　respect　to　their　content；　and　declares　that　the
contradiction　entirely　nullifies　them。　We　can　also；　however；　make　a
positive　use　of　this　principle；　that　is；　not　merely　to　banish
falsehood　and　error　（in　so　far　as　it　rests　upon　contradiction）；　but
also　for　the　cognition　of　truth。　For　if　the　judgement　is　analytical；
be　it　affirmative　or　negative；　its　truth　must　always　be　recognizable
by　means　of　the　principle　of　contradiction。　For　the　contrary　of　that
which　lies　and　is　cogitated　as　conception　in　the　cognition　of　the
object　will　be　always　properly　negatived；　but　the　conception　itself
must　always　be　affirmed　of　the　object；　inasmuch　as　the　contrary
thereof　would　be　in　contradiction　to　the　object。
　　We　must　therefore　hold　the　principle　of　contradiction　to　be　the
universal　and　fully　sufficient　Principle　of　all　analytical
cognition。　But　as　a　sufficient　criterion　of　truth；　it　has　no　further
utility　or　authority。　For　the　fact　that　no　cognition　can　be　at
variance　with　this　principle　without　nullifying　itself；　constitutes
this　principle　the　sine　qua　non；　but　not　the　determining　ground　of　the
truth　of　our　cognition。　As　our　business　at　present　is　properly　with
the　synthetical　part　of　our　knowledge　only；　we　shall　always　be　on
our　guard　not　to　transgress　this　inviolable　principle；　but　at　the　same
time　not　to　expect　from　it　any　direct　assistance　in　the
establishment　of　the　truth　of　any　synthetical　proposition。
　　There　exists；　however；　a　formula　of　this　celebrated　principle…　a
principle　merely　formal　and　entirely　without　content…　which　contains　a
synthesis　that　has　been　inadvertently　and　quite　unnecessarily　mixed　up
with　it。　It　is　this：　〃It　is　impossible　for　a　thing　to　be　and　not　to　be
at　the　same　time。〃　Not　to　mention　the　superfluousness　of　the
addition　of　the　word　impossible　to　indicate　the　apodeictic
certainty；　which　ought　to　be　self…evident　from　the　proposition　itself；
the　proposition　is　affected　by　the　condition　of　time；　and　as　it　were
says：　〃A　thing　=　A；　which　is　something　=　B；　cannot　at　the　same　time　be
non…B。〃　But　both；　B　as　well　as　non…B；　may　quite　well　exist　in
succession。　For　example；　a　man　who　is　young　cannot　at　the　same　time　be
old；　but　the　same　man　can　very　well　be　at　one　time　young；　and　at
another　not　young；　that　is；　old。　Now　the　principle　of　contradiction　as
a　merely　logical　proposition　must　not　by　any　means　limit　its
application　merely　to　relations　of　time；　and　consequently　a　formula
like　the　preceding　is　quite　foreign　to　its　true　purpose。　The
misunderstanding　arises　in　this　way。　We　first　of　all　separate　a
predicate　of　a　thing　from　the　conception　of　the　thing；　and
afterwards　connect　with　this　predicate　its　opposite；　and　hence　do
not　establish　any　contradiction　with　the　subject；　but　only　with　its
predicate；　which　has　been　conjoined　with　the　subject　synthetically…
a　contradiction；　moreover；　which　obtains　only　when　the　first　and
second　predicate　are　affirmed　in　the　same　time。　If　I　say：　〃A　man　who
is　ignorant　is　not　learned；〃　the　condition　〃at　the　same　time〃　m