the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第52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！


groundless　pretensions　to　the　enlargement　of　our　knowledge　by　pure
reason　that　we　must　take　it　as　a　general　rule　to　be　mistrustful　of　all
such；　and　without　a　thoroughgoing　and　radical　deduction；　to　believe
nothing　of　the　sort　even　on　the　clearest　dogmatical　evidence。
　　Every　addition　to　our　empirical　knowledge；　and　every　advance　made　in
the　exercise　of　our　perception；　is　nothing　more　than　an　extension　of
the　determination　of　the　internal　sense；　that　is　to　say；　a　progression
in　time；　be　objects　themselves　what　they　may；　phenomena；　or　pure
intuitions。　This　progression　in　time　determines　everything；　and　is
itself　determined　by　nothing　else。　That　is　to　say；　the　parts　of　the
progression　exist　only　in　time；　and　by　means　of　the　synthesis　thereof；
and　are　not　given　antecedently　to　it。　For　this　reason；　every
transition　in　perception　to　anything　which　follows　upon　another　in
time；　is　a　determination　of　time　by　means　of　the　production　of　this
perception。　And　as　this　determination　of　time　is；　always　and　in　all
its　parts；　a　quantity；　the　perception　produced　is　to　be　considered
as　a　quantity　which　proceeds　through　all　its　degrees…　no　one　of
which　is　the　smallest　possible…　from　zero　up　to　its　determined　degree。
From　this　we　perceive　the　possibility　of　cognizing　a　priori　a　law　of
changes…　a　law；　however；　which　concerns　their　form　merely。　We　merely
anticipate　our　own　apprehension；　the　formal　condition　of　which；
inasmuch　as　it　is　itself　to　be　found　in　the　mind　antecedently　to　all
given　phenomena；　must　certainly　be　capable　of　being　cognized　a　priori。
　　Thus；　as　time　contains　the　sensuous　condition　a　priori　of　the
possibility　of　a　continuous　progression　of　that　which　exists　to　that
which　follows　it；　the　understanding；　by　virtue　of　the　unity　of
apperception；　contains　the　condition　a　priori　of　the　possibility　of
a　continuous　determination　of　the　position　in　time　of　all　phenomena；
and　this　by　means　of　the　series　of　causes　and　effects；　the　former　of
which　necessitate　the　sequence　of　the　latter；　and　thereby　render
universally　and　for　all　time；　and　by　consequence；　objectively；　valid
the　empirical　cognition　of　the　relations　of　time。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　C。　THIRD　ANALOGY。

　　　　　　Principle　of　Coexistence；　According　to　the　Law
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　of　Reciprocity　or　munity。

　　　All　substances；　in　so　far　as　they　can　be　perceived　in　space
　　　　at　the　same　time；　exist　in　a　state　of　plete　reciprocity
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　of　action。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。

　　Things　are　coexistent；　when　in　empirical　intuition　the　perception　of
the　one　can　follow　upon　the　perception　of　the　other；　and　vice　versa…
which　cannot　occur　in　the　succession　of　phenomena；　as　we　have　shown　in
the　explanation　of　the　second　principle。　Thus　I　can　perceive　the
moon　and　then　the　earth；　or　conversely；　first　the　earth　and　then　the
moon；　and　for　the　reason　that　my　perceptions　of　these　objects　can
reciprocally　follow　each　other；　I　say；　they　exist　contemporaneously。
Now　coexistence　is　the　existence　of　the　manifold　in　the　same　time。　But
time　itself　is　not　an　object　of　perception；　and　therefore　we　cannot
conclude　from　the　fact　that　things　are　placed　in　the　same　time；　the
other　fact；　that　the　perception　of　these　things　can　follow　each
other　reciprocally。　The　synthesis　of　the　imagination　in　apprehension
would　only　present　to　us　each　of　these　perceptions　as　present　in　the
subject　when　the　other　is　not　present；　and　contrariwise；　but　would　not
show　that　the　objects　are　coexistent；　that　is　to　say；　that；　if　the　one
exists；　the　other　also　exists　in　the　same　time；　and　that　this　is
necessarily　so；　in　order　that　the　perceptions　may　be　capable　of
following　each　other　reciprocally。　It　follows　that　a　conception　of　the
understanding　or　category　of　the　reciprocal　sequence　of　the
determinations　of　phenomena　（existing；　as　they　do；　apart　from　each
other；　and　yet　contemporaneously）；　is　requisite　to　justify　us　in
saying　that　the　reciprocal　succession　of　perceptions　has　its
foundation　in　the　object；　and　to　enable　us　to　represent　coexistence　as
objective。　But　that　relation　of　substances　in　which　the　one　contains
determinations　the　ground　of　which　is　in　the　other　substance；　is　the
relation　of　influence。　And；　when　this　influence　is　reciprocal；　it　is
the　relation　of　munity　or　reciprocity。　Consequently　the　coexistence
of　substances　in　space　cannot　be　cognized　in　experience　otherwise　than
under　the　precondition　of　their　reciprocal　action。　This　is　therefore
the　condition　of　the　possibility　of　things　themselves　as　objects　of
experience。
　　Things　are　coexistent；　in　so　far　as　they　exist　in　one　and　the　same
time。　But　how　can　we　know　that　they　exist　in　one　and　the　same　time？
Only　by　observing　that　the　order　in　the　synthesis　of　apprehension　of
the　manifold　is　arbitrary　and　a　matter　of　indifference；　that　is　to
say；　that　it　can　proceed　from　A；　through　B；　C；　D；　to　E；　or
contrariwise　from　E　to　A。　For　if　they　were　successive　in　time　（and
in　the　order；　let　us　suppose；　which　begins　with　A）；　it　is　quite
impossible　for　the　apprehension　in　perception　to　begin　with　E　and　go
backwards　to　A；　inasmuch　as　A　belongs　to　past　time　and；　therefore；
cannot　be　an　object　of　apprehension。
　　Let　us　assume　that　in　a　number　of　substances　considered　as　phenomena
each　is　pletely　isolated；　that　is；　that　no　one　acts　upon　another。
Then　I　say　that　the　coexistence　of　these　cannot　be　an　object　of
possible　perception　and　that　the　existence　of　one　cannot；　by　any
mode　of　empirical　synthesis；　lead　us　to　the　existence　of　another。
For　we　imagine　them　in　this　case　to　be　separated　by　a　pletely
void　space；　and　thus　perception；　which　proceeds　from　the　one　to　the
other　in　time；　would　indeed　determine　their　existence　by　means　of　a
following　perception；　but　would　be　quite　unable　to　distinguish　whether
the　one　phenomenon　follows　objectively　upon　the　first；　or　is
coexistent　with　it。
　　Besides　the　mere　fact　of　existence；　then；　there　must　be　something　by
means　of　which　A　determines　the　position　of　B　in　time　and；　conversely；
B　the　position　of　A；　because　only　under　this　condition　can
substances　be　empirically　represented　as　existing　contemporaneously。
Now　that　alone　determines　the　position　of　another　thing　in　time
which　is　the　cause　of　it　or　of　its　determinations。　Consequently
every　substance　（inasmuch　as　it　can　have　succession　predicated　of　it
only　in　respect　of　its　determinations）　must　contain　the　causality　of
certain　determinations　in　another　substance；　and　at　the　same　time
the　effects　of　the　causality　of　the　other　in　itself。　That　is　to　say；
substances　must　stand　（mediately　or　immediately）　in　dynamical
munity　with　each　other；　if　coexistence　is　to　be　cognized　in　any
possible　experience。　But；　in　regard　to　objects　of　experience；　that
is　absolutely　necessary　without　which　the　experience　of　these
objects　would　itself　be　impossible。　Consequently　it　is　absolutely
necessary　that　all　substances　in　the　world　of　phenomena；　in　so　far
as　they　are　coexistent；　stand　in　a　relation　of　plete　munity　of
reciprocal　action　to　each　other。
　　The　word　munity　has　in　our　language*　two　meanings；　and　contains
the　two　notions　conveyed　in　the　Latin　munio　and　mercium。　We
employ　it　in　this　place　in　the　latter　sense…　that　of　a　dynamical
munity；　without　which　even　the　munity　of　place　（munio　spatii）
could　not　be　empirically　cognized。　In　our　experiences　it　is　easy　to
observe　that　it　is　only　the　continuous　influences　in　all　parts　of
space　that　can　conduct　our　senses　from　one　object　to　another；　that　the
light　which　plays　between　our　eyes　and　the　heavenly　bodies　produces
a　mediating　munity　between　them　and　us；　and　thereby　evidences　their
coexistence　with　us；　that　we　cannot　empirically　change　our　position
（perceive　this　change）；　unless　the　existence　of　matter　throughout
the　whole　of　space　rendered　possible　the　perception　of　the　positions
we　occupy；　and　that　this　perception　can　prove　the　contemporaneous
existence　of　these　places　only　through　their　reciprocal　influence；　and
thereby　also　the　coexistence　of　even　the　most　remote　objects…　although
in　this　case　the　proof　is　only　mediate。　Without　munity；　every
perception　（of　a　phenomenon　in　space）　is　separated　from　every　other
and　isolated；　and　the　chain　of　empiri