the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第6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！


of　sensible　intuition；　and　hence　are　only　conditions　of　the
existence　of　things　as　phenomena；　that；　moreover；　we　have　no
conceptions　of　the　understanding；　and；　consequently；　no　elements　for
the　cognition　of　things；　except　in　so　far　as　a　corresponding　intuition
can　be　given　to　these　conceptions；　that；　accordingly；　we　can　have　no
cognition　of　an　object；　as　a　thing　in　itself；　but　only　as　an　object　of
sensible　intuition；　that　is；　as　phenomenon…　all　this　is　proved　in
the　analytical　part　of　the　Critique；　and　from　this　the　limitation　of
all　possible　speculative　cognition　to　the　mere　objects　of
experience；　follows　as　a　necessary　result。　At　the　same　time；　it　must
be　carefully　borne　in　mind　that；　while　we　surrender　the　power　of
cognizing；　we　still　reserve　the　power　of　thinking　objects；　as　things
in　themselves。*　For；　otherwise；　we　should　require　to　affirm　the
existence　of　an　appearance；　without　something　that　appears…　which
would　be　absurd。　Now　let　us　suppose；　for　a　moment；　that　we　had　not
undertaken　this　criticism　and；　accordingly；　had　not　drawn　the
necessary　distinction　between　things　as　objects　of　experience　and
things　as　they　are　in　themselves。　The　principle　of　causality；　and；
by　consequence；　the　mechanism　of　nature　as　determined　by　causality；
would　then　have　absolute　validity　in　relation　to　all　things　as
efficient　causes。　I　should　then　be　unable　to　assert；　with　regard　to
one　and　the　same　being；　e。g。；　the　human　soul；　that　its　will　is　free；
and　yet；　at　the　same　time；　subject　to　natural　necessity；　that　is；
not　free；　without　falling　into　a　palpable　contradiction；　for　in　both
propositions　I　should　take　the　soul　in　the　same　signification；　as　a
thing　in　general；　as　a　thing　in　itself…　as；　without　previous
criticism；　I　could　not　but　take　it。　Suppose　now；　on　the　other　hand；
that　we　have　undertaken　this　criticism；　and　have　learnt　that　an　object
may　be　taken　in　two　senses；　first；　as　a　phenomenon；　secondly；　as　a
thing　in　itself；　and　that；　according　to　the　deduction　of　the
conceptions　of　the　understanding；　the　principle　of　causality　has
reference　only　to　things　in　the　first　sense。　We　then　see　how　it　does
not　involve　any　contradiction　to　assert；　on　the　one　hand；　that　the
will；　in　the　phenomenal　sphere…　in　visible　action…　is　necessarily
obedient　to　the　law　of　nature；　and；　in　so　far；　not　free；　and；　on　the
other　hand；　that；　as　belonging　to　a　thing　in　itself；　it　is　not　subject
to　that　law；　and；　accordingly；　is　free。　Now；　it　is　true　that　I　cannot；
by　means　of　speculative　reason；　and　still　less　by　empirical
observation；　cognize　my　soul　as　a　thing　in　itself　and　consequently；
cannot　cognize　liberty　as　the　property　of　a　being　to　which　I　ascribe
effects　in　the　world　of　sense。　For；　to　do　so；　I　must　cognize　this
being　as　existing；　and　yet　not　in　time；　which…　since　I　cannot
support　my　conception　by　any　intuition…　is　impossible。　At　the　same
time；　while　I　cannot　cognize；　I　can　quite　well　think　freedom；　that
is　to　say；　my　representation　of　it　involves　at　least　no　contradiction；
if　we　bear　in　mind　the　critical　distinction　of　the　two　modes　of
representation　（the　sensible　and　the　intellectual）　and　the
consequent　limitation　of　the　conceptions　of　the　pure　understanding　and
of　the　principles　which　flow　from　them。　Suppose　now　that　morality
necessarily　presupposed　liberty；　in　the　strictest　sense；　as　a　property
of　our　will；　suppose　that　reason　contained　certain　practical；　original
principles　a　priori；　which　were　absolutely　impossible　without　this
presupposition；　and　suppose；　at　the　same　time；　that　speculative　reason
had　proved　that　liberty　was　incapable　of　being　thought　at　all。　It
would　then　follow　that　the　moral　presupposition　must　give　way　to　the
speculative　affirmation；　the　opposite　of　which　involves　an　obvious
contradiction；　and　that　liberty　and；　with　it；　morality　must　yield　to
the　mechanism　of　nature；　for　the　negation　of　morality　involves　no
contradiction；　except　on　the　presupposition　of　liberty。　Now　morality
does　not　require　the　speculative　cognition　of　liberty；　it　is　enough
that　I　can　think　it；　that　its　conception　involves　no　contradiction；
that　it　does　not　interfere　with　the　mechanism　of　nature。　But　even　this
requirement　we　could　not　satisfy；　if　we　had　not　learnt　the　twofold
sense　in　which　things　may　be　taken；　and　it　is　only　in　this　way　that
the　doctrine　of　morality　and　the　doctrine　of　nature　are　confined
within　their　proper　limits。　For　this　result；　then；　we　are　indebted
to　a　criticism　which　warns　us　of　our　unavoidable　ignorance　with　regard
to　things　in　themselves；　and　establishes　the　necessary　limitation　of
our　theoretical　cognition　to　mere　phenomena。

　　*In　order　to　cognize　an　object；　I　must　be　able　to　prove　its
possibility；　either　from　its　reality　as　attested　by　experience；　or　a
priori；　by　means　of　reason。　But　I　can　think　what　I　please；　provided
only　I　do　not　contradict　myself；　that　is；　provided　my　conception　is
a　possible　thought；　though　I　may　be　unable　to　answer　for　the　existence
of　a　corresponding　object　in　the　sum　of　possibilities。　But　something
more　is　required　before　I　can　attribute　to　such　a　conception　objective
validity；　that　is　real　possibility…　the　other　possibility　being　merely
logical。　We　are　not；　however；　confined　to　theoretical　sources　of
cognition　for　the　means　of　satisfying　this　additional　requirement；　but
may　derive　them　from　practical　sources。

　　The　positive　value　of　the　critical　principles　of　pure　reason　in
relation　to　the　conception　of　God　and　of　the　simple　nature　of　the
soul；　admits　of　a　similar　exemplification；　but　on　this　point　I　shall
not　dwell。　I　cannot　even　make　the　assumption…　as　the　practical
interests　of　morality　require…　of　God；　freedom；　and　immortality；　if
I　do　not　deprive　speculative　reason　of　its　pretensions　to　transcendent
insight。　For　to　arrive　at　these；　it　must　make　use　of　principles　which；
in　fact；　extend　only　to　the　objects　of　possible　experience；　and
which　cannot　be　applied　to　objects　beyond　this　sphere　without
converting　them　into　phenomena；　and　thus　rendering　the　practical
extension　of　pure　reason　impossible。　I　must；　therefore；　abolish
knowledge；　to　make　room　for　belief。　The　dogmatism　of　metaphysics；　that
is；　the　presumption　that　it　is　possible　to　advance　in　metaphysics
without　previous　criticism；　is　the　true　source　of　the　unbelief　（always
dogmatic）　which　militates　against　morality。
　　Thus；　while　it　may　be　no　very　difficult　task　to　bequeath　a　legacy　to
posterity；　in　the　shape　of　a　system　of　metaphysics　constructed　in
accordance　with　the　Critique　of　Pure　Reason；　still　the　value　of　such　a
bequest　is　not　to　be　depreciated。　It　will　render　an　important
service　to　reason；　by　substituting　the　certainty　of　scientific
method　for　that　random　groping　after　results　without　the　guidance　of
principles；　which　has　hitherto　characterized　the　pursuit　of
metaphysical　studies。　It　will　render　an　important　service　to　the
inquiring　mind　of　youth；　by　leading　the　student　to　apply　his　powers　to
the　cultivation　of。　genuine　science；　instead　of　wasting　them；　as　at
present；　on　speculations　which　can　never　lead　to　any　result；　or　on　the
idle　attempt　to　invent　new　ideas　and　opinions。　But；　above　all；　it　will
confer　an　inestimable　benefit　on　morality　and　religion；　by　showing
that　all　the　objections　urged　against　them　may　be　silenced　for　ever　by
the　Socratic　method；　that　is　to　say；　by　proving　the　ignorance　of　the
objector。　For；　as　the　world　has　never　been；　and；　no　doubt；　never
will　be　without　a　system　of　metaphysics　of　one　kind　or　another；　it
is　the　highest　and　weightiest　concern　of　philosophy　to　render　it
powerless　for　harm；　by　closing　up　the　sources　of　error。
　　This　important　change　in　the　field　of　the　sciences；　this　loss　of　its
fancied　possessions；　to　which　speculative　reason　must　submit；　does　not
prove　in　any　way　detrimental　to　the　general　interests　of　humanity。　The
advantages　which　the　world　has　derived　from　the　teachings　of　pure
reason　are　not　at　all　impaired。　The　loss　falls；　in　its　whole　extent；
on　the　monopoly　of　the　schools；　but　does　not　in　the　slightest　degree
touch　the　interests　of　mankind。　I　appeal　to　the　most　obstinate
dogmatist；　whether　the　proof　of　the　continued　existence　of　the　soul
after　death；　derived　from　the　simplicity　of