the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第70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！


between　a　cognition　and　its　condition；　constitute　the　different
kinds　of　syllogisms。　These　are　just　threefold…　analogously　with　all
judgements；　in　so　far　as　they　differ　in　the　mode　of　expressing　the
relation　of　a　cognition　in　the　understanding…　namely；　categorical；
hypothetical；　and　disjunctive。
　　When　as　often　happens；　the　conclusion　is　a　judgement　which　may
follow　from　other　given　judgements；　through　which　a　perfectly
different　object　is　cogitated；　I　endeavour　to　discover　in　the
understanding　whether　the　assertion　in　this　conclusion　does　not
stand　under　certain　conditions　according　to　a　general　rule。　If　I
find　such　a　condition；　and　if　the　object　mentioned　in　the　conclusion
can　be　subsumed　under　the　given　condition；　then　this　conclusion
follows　from　a　rule　which　is　also　valid　for　other　objects　of
cognition。　From　this　we　see　that　reason　endeavours　to　subject　the
great　variety　of　the　cognitions　of　the　understanding　to　the　smallest
possible　number　of　principles　（general　conditions）；　and　thus　to
produce　in　it　the　highest　unity。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　C。　OF　THE　PURE　USE　OF　REASON。

　　Can　we　isolate　reason；　and；　if　so；　is　it　in　this　case　a　peculiar
source　of　conceptions　and　judgements　which　spring　from　it　alone；　and
through　which　it　can　be　applied　to　objects；　or　is　it　merely　a
subordinate　faculty；　whose　duty　it　is　to　give　a　certain　form　to
given　cognitions…　a　form　which　is　called　logical；　and　through　which
the　cognitions　of　the　understanding　are　subordinated　to　each　other；
and　lower　rules　to　higher　（those；　to　wit；　whose　condition　prises　in
its　sphere　the　condition　of　the　others）；　in　so　far　as　this　can　be　done
by　parison？　This　is　the　question　which　we　have　at　present　to
answer。　Manifold　variety　of　rules　and　unity　of　principles　is　a
requirement　of　reason；　for　the　purpose　of　bringing　the　understanding
into　plete　accordance　with　itself；　just　as　understanding　subjects
the　manifold　content　of　intuition　to　conceptions；　and　thereby
introduces　connection　into　it。　But　this　principle　prescribes　no　law　to
objects；　and　does　not　contain　any　ground　of　the　possibility　of
cognizing　or　of　determining　them　as　such；　but　is　merely　a　subjective
law　for　the　proper　arrangement　of　the　content　of　the　understanding。
The　purpose　of　this　law　is；　by　a　parison　of　the　conceptions　of
the　understanding；　to　reduce　them　to　the　smallest　possible　number；
although；　at　the　same　time；　it　does　not　justify　us　in　demanding　from
objects　themselves　such　a　uniformity　as　might　contribute　to　the
convenience　and　the　enlargement　of　the　sphere　of　the　understanding；　or
in　expecting　that　it　will　itself　thus　receive　from　them　objective
validity。　In　one　word；　the　question　is：　〃does　reason　in　itself；　that
is；　does　pure　reason　contain　a　priori　synthetical　principles　and
rules；　and　what　are　those　principles？〃
　　The　formal　and　logical　procedure　of　reason　in　syllogisms　gives　us
sufficient　information　in　regard　to　the　ground　on　which　the
transcendental　principle　of　reason　in　its　pure　synthetical　cognition
will　rest。
　　1。　Reason；　as　observed　in　the　syllogistic　process；　is　not　applicable
to　intuitions；　for　the　purpose　of　subjecting　them　to　rules…　for　this
is　the　province　of　the　understanding　with　its　categories…　but　to
conceptions　and　judgements。　If　pure　reason　does　apply　to　objects　and
the　intuition　of　them；　it　does　so　not　immediately；　but　mediately…
through　the　understanding　and　its　judgements；　which　have　a　direct
relation　to　the　senses　and　their　intuition；　for　the　purpose　of
determining　their　objects。　The　unity　of　reason　is　therefore　not　the
unity　of　a　possible　experience；　but　is　essentially　different　from　this
unity；　which　is　that　of　the　understanding。　That　everything　which
happens　has　a　cause；　is　not　a　principle　cognized　and　prescribed　by
reason。　This　principle　makes　the　unity　of　experience　possible　and
borrows　nothing　from　reason；　which；　without　a　reference　to　possible
experience；　could　never　have　produced　by　means　of　mere　conceptions　any
such　synthetical　unity。
　　2。　Reason；　in　its　logical　use；　endeavours　to　discover　the　general
condition　of　its　judgement　（the　conclusion）；　and　a　syllogism　is　itself
nothing　but　a　judgement　by　means　of　the　subsumption　of　its　condition
under　a　general　rule　（the　major）。　Now　as　this　rule　may　itself　be
subjected　to　the　same　process　of　reason；　and　thus　the　condition　of　the
condition　be　sought　（by　means　of　a　prosyllogism）　as　long　as　the
process　can　be　continued；　it　is　very　manifest　that　the　peculiar
principle　of　reason　in　its　logical　use　is　to　find　for　the
conditioned　cognition　of　the　understanding　the　unconditioned　whereby
the　unity　of　the　former　is　pleted。
　　But　this　logical　maxim　cannot　be　a　principle　of　pure　reason；
unless　we　admit　that；　if　the　conditioned　is　given；　the　whole　series　of
conditions　subordinated　to　one　another…　a　series　which　is　consequently
itself　unconditioned…　is　also　given；　that　is；　contained　in　the
object　and　its　connection。
　　But　this　principle　of　pure　reason　is　evidently　synthetical；　for；
analytically；　the　conditioned　certainly　relates　to　some　condition；　but
not　to　the　unconditioned。　From　this　principle　also　there　must
originate　different　synthetical　propositions；　of　which　the　pure
understanding　is　perfectly　ignorant；　for　it　has　to　do　only　with
objects　of　a　possible　experience；　the　cognition　and　synthesis　of　which
is　always　conditioned。　The　unconditioned；　if　it　does　really　exist；
must　be　especially　considered　in　regard　to　the　determinations　which
distinguish　it　from　whatever　is　conditioned；　and　will　thus　afford　us
material　for　many　a　priori　synthetical　propositions。
　　The　principles　resulting　from　this　highest　principle　of　pure
reason　will；　however；　be　transcendent　in　relation　to　phenomena；　that
is　to　say；　it　will　be　impossible　to　make　any　adequate　empirical　use　of
this　principle。　It　is　therefore　pletely　different　from　all
principles　of　the　understanding；　the　use　made　of　which　is　entirely
immanent；　their　object　and　purpose　being　merely　the　possibility　of
experience。　Now　our　duty　in　the　transcendental　dialectic　is　as
follows。　To　discover　whether　the　principle　that　the　series　of
conditions　（in　the　synthesis　of　phenomena；　or　of　thought　in　general）
extends　to　the　unconditioned　is　objectively　true；　or　not；　what
consequences　result　therefrom　affecting　the　empirical　use　of　the
understanding；　or　rather　whether　there　exists　any　such　objectively
valid　proposition　of　reason；　and　whether　it　is　not；　on　the　contrary；　a
merely　logical　precept　which　directs　us　to　ascend　perpetually　to　still
higher　conditions；　to　approach　pleteness　in　the　series　of　them；　and
thus　to　introduce　into　our　cognition　the　highest　possible　unity　of
reason。　We　must　ascertain；　I　say；　whether　this　requirement　of　reason
has　not　been　regarded；　by　a　misunderstanding；　as　a　transcendental
principle　of　pure　reason；　which　postulates　a　thorough　pleteness
in　the　series　of　conditions　in　objects　themselves。　We　must　show；
moreover；　the　misconceptions　and　illusions　that　intrude　into
syllogisms；　the　major　proposition　of　which　pure　reason　has　supplied…　a
proposition　which　has　perhaps　more　of　the　character　of　a　petitio
than　of　a　postulatum…　and　that　proceed　from　experience　upwards　to
its　conditions。　The　solution　of　these　problems　is　our　task　in
transcendental　dialectic；　which　we　are　about　to　expose　even　at　its
source；　that　lies　deep　in　human　reason。　We　shall　divide　it　into　two
parts；　the　first　of　which　will　treat　of　the　transcendent　conceptions
of　pure　reason；　the　second　of　transcendent　and　dialectical　syllogisms。
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　BOOK　I。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　OF　THE　CONCEPTIONS　OF　PURE　REASON。

　　The　conceptions　of　pure　reason…　we　do　not　here　speak　of　the
possibility　of　them…　are　not　obtained　by　reflection；　but　by
inference　or　conclusion。　The　conceptions　of　understanding　are　also
cogitated　a　priori　antecedently　to　experience；　and　render　it　possible；
but　they　contain　nothing　but　the　unity　of　reflection　upon　phenomena；
in　so　far　as　these　must　necessarily　belong　to　a　possible　empirical
consciousness。　Through　them　alone　are　cognition　and　the
determination　of　an　object　possible。　It　is　from　them；　accordingly；
that　we　receive　material　for　reasoning；　and　antecedently　to　them　we
possess　no