the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第78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！


external　to　me；　and　whether　therefore　I　can　exist　merely　as　a　thinking
being　（without　being　man）…　cannot　be　known　or　inferred　from　this
proposition。
　　Thus　we　have　gained　nothing　as　regards　the　cognition　of　myself　as
object；　by　the　analysis　of　the　consciousness　of　my　Self　in　thought。
The　logical　exposition　of　thought　in　general　is　mistaken　for　a
metaphysical　determination　of　the　object。
　　Our　Critique　would　be　an　investigation　utterly　superfluous；　if　there
existed　a　possibility　of　proving　a　priori；　that　all　thinking　beings
are　in　themselves　simple　substances；　as　such；　therefore；　possess　the
inseparable　attribute　of　personality；　and　are　conscious　of　their
existence　apart　from　and　unconnected　with　matter。　For　we　should　thus
have　taken　a　step　beyond　the　world　of　sense；　and　have　penetrated
into　the　sphere　of　noumena；　and　in　this　case　the　right　could　not　be
denied　us　of　extending　our　knowledge　in　this　sphere；　of　establishing
ourselves；　and；　under　a　favouring　star；　appropriating　to　ourselves
possessions　in　it。　For　the　proposition：　〃Every　thinking　being；　as
such；　is　simple　substance；〃　is　an　a　priori　synthetical　proposition；
because　in　the　first　place　it　goes　beyond　the　conception　which　is
the　subject　of　it；　and　adds　to　the　mere　notion　of　a　thinking　being　the
mode　of　its　existence；　and　in　the　second　place　annexes　a　predicate
（that　of　simplicity）　to　the　latter　conception…　a　predicate　which　it
could　not　have　discovered　in　the　sphere　of　experience。　It　would　follow
that　a　priori　synthetical　propositions　are　possible　and　legitimate；
not　only；　as　we　have　maintained；　in　relation　to　objects　of　possible
experience；　and　as　principles　of　the　possibility　of　this　experience
itself；　but　are　applicable　to　things　in　themselves…　an　inference　which
makes　an　end　of　the　whole　of　this　Critique；　and　obliges　us　to　fall
back　on　the　old　mode　of　metaphysical　procedure。　But　indeed　the
danger　is　not　so　great；　if　we　look　a　little　closer　into　the　question。
　　There　lurks　in　the　procedure　of　rational　Psychology　a　paralogism；
which　is　represented　in　the　following　syllogism：
　　That　which　cannot　be　cogitated　otherwise　than　as　subject；　does　not
exist　otherwise　than　as　subject；　and　is　therefore　substance。
　　A　thinking　being；　considered　merely　as　such；　cannot　be　cogitated
otherwise　than　as　subject。
　　Therefore　it　exists　also　as　such；　that　is；　as　substance。
　　In　the　major　we　speak　of　a　being　that　can　be　cogitated　generally　and
in　every　relation；　consequently　as　it　may　be　given　in　intuition。　But
in　the　minor　we　speak　of　the　same　being　only　in　so　far　as　it　regards
itself　as　subject；　relatively　to　thought　and　the　unity　of
consciousness；　but　not　in　relation　to　intuition；　by　which　it　is
presented　as　an　object　to　thought。　Thus　the　conclusion　is　here　arrived
at　by　a　Sophisma　figurae　dictionis。*

　　*Thought　is　taken　in　the　two　premisses　in　two　totally　different
senses。　In　the　major　it　is　considered　as　relating　and　applying　to
objects　in　general；　consequently　to　objects　of　intuition　also。　In
the　minor；　we　understand　it　as　relating　merely　to
self…consciousness。　In　this　sense；　we　do　not　cogitate　an　object；　but
merely　the　relation　to　the　self…consciousness　of　the　subject；　as　the
form　of　thought。　In　the　former　premiss　we　speak　of　things　which　cannot
be　cogitated　otherwise　than　as　subjects。　In　the　second；　we　do　not
speak　of　things；　but　of　thought　all　objects　being　abstracted）；　in
which　the　Ego　is　always　the　subject　of　consciousness。　Hence　the
conclusion　cannot　be；　〃I　cannot　exist　otherwise　than　as　subject〃；
but　only　〃I　can；　in　cogitating　my　existence；　employ　my　Ego　only　as　the
subject　of　the　judgement。〃　But　this　is　an　identical　proposition；　and
throws　no　light　on　the　mode　of　my　existence。

　　That　this　famous　argument　is　a　mere　paralogism；　will　be　plain　to　any
one　who　will　consider　the　general　remark　which　precedes　our　exposition
of　the　principles　of　the　pure　understanding；　and　the　section　on
noumena。　For　it　was　there　proved　that　the　conception　of　a　thing；　which
can　exist　per　se…　only　as　a　subject　and　never　as　a　predicate；
possesses　no　objective　reality；　that　is　to　say；　we　can　never　know
whether　there　exists　any　object　to　correspond　to　the　conception；
consequently；　the　conception　is　nothing　more　than　a　conception；　and
from　it　we　derive　no　proper　knowledge。　If　this　conception　is　to
indicate　by　the　term　substance；　an　object　that　can　be　given；　if　it
is　to　bee　a　cognition；　we　must　have　at　the　foundation　of　the
cognition　a　permanent　intuition；　as　the　indispensable　condition　of　its
objective　reality。　For　through　intuition　alone　can　an　object　be　given。
But　in　internal　intuition　there　is　nothing　permanent；　for　the　Ego　is
but　the　consciousness　of　my　thought。　If　then；　we　appeal　merely　to
thought；　we　cannot　discover　the　necessary　condition　of　the　application
of　the　conception　of　substance…　that　is；　of　a　subject　existing　per　se…
to　the　subject　as　a　thinking　being。　And　thus　the　conception　of　the
simple　nature　of　substance；　which　is　connected　with　the　objective
reality　of　this　conception；　is　shown　to　be　also　invalid；　and　to　be；　in
fact；　nothing　more　than　the　logical　qualitative　unity　of
self…consciousness　in　thought；　whilst　we　remain　perfectly　ignorant
whether　the　subject　is　posite　or　not。

　　　　　　　Refutation　of　the　Argument　of　Mendelssohn　for　the
　　　　　　　　　　Substantiality　or　Permanence　of　the　Soul。

　　This　acute　philosopher　easily　perceived　the　insufficiency　of　the
mon　argument　which　attempts　to　prove　that　the　soul…　it　being
granted　that　it　is　a　simple　being…　cannot　perish　by　dissolution　or
deposition；　he　saw　it　is　not　impossible　for　it　to　cease　to　be　by
extinction；　or　disappearance。　He　endeavoured　to　prove　in　his　Phaedo；
that　the　soul　cannot　be　annihilated；　by　showing　that　a　simple　being
cannot　cease　to　exist。　Inasmuch　as；　be　said；　a　simple　existence　cannot
diminish；　nor　gradually　lose　portions　of　its　being；　and　thus　be　by
degrees　reduced　to　nothing　（for　it　possesses　no　parts；　and　therefore
no　multiplicity）；　between　the　moment　in　which　it　is；　and　the　moment　in
which　it　is　not；　no　time　can　be　discovered…　which　is　impossible。　But
this　philosopher　did　not　consider　that；　granting　the　soul　to　possess
this　simple　nature；　which　contains　no　parts　external　to　each　other　and
consequently　no　extensive　quantity；　we　cannot　refuse　to　it　any　less
than　to　any　other　being；　intensive　quantity；　that　is；　a　degree　of
reality　in　regard　to　all　its　faculties；　nay；　to　all　that　constitutes
its　existence。　But　this　degree　of　reality　can　bee　less　and　less
through　an　infinite　series　of　smaller　degrees。　It　follows；
therefore；　that　this　supposed　substance…　this　thing；　the　permanence　of
which　is　not　assured　in　any　other　way；　may；　if　not　by　deposition；
by　gradual　loss　（remissio）　of　its　powers　（consequently　by
elanguescence；　if　I　may　employ　this　expression）；　be　changed　into
nothing。　For　consciousness　itself　has　always　a　degree；　which　may　be
lessened。*　Consequently　the　faculty　of　being　conscious　may　be
diminished；　and　so　with　all　other　faculties。　The　permanence　of　the
soul；　therefore；　as　an　object　of　the　internal　sense；　remains
undemonstrated；　nay；　even　indemonstrable。　Its　permanence　in　life　is
evident；　per　se；　inasmuch　as　the　thinking　being　（as　man）　is　to　itself；
at　the　same　time；　an　object　of　the　external　senses。　But　this　does
not　authorize　the　rational　psychologist　to　affirm；　from　mere
conceptions；　its　permanence　beyond　life。*＇2＇

　　*Clearness　is　not；　as　logicians　maintain；　the　consciousness　of　a
representation。　For　a　certain　degree　of　consciousness；　which　may
not；　however；　be　sufficient　for　recollection；　is　to　be　met　with　in
many　dim　representations。　For　without　any　consciousness　at　all；　we
should　not　be　able　to　recognize　any　difference　in　the　obscure
representations　we　connect；　as　we　really　can　do　with　many　conceptions；
such　as　those　of　right　and　justice；　and　those　of　the　musician；　who
strikes　at　once　several　notes　in　improvising　a　piece　of　music。　But　a
representation　is　clear；　in　which　our　consciousness　is　sufficient
for　the　consciousness　of　the　difference　of　this　representation　from
others。　If　we　are　only　conscious　that　there　is　a　difference；　but　are
not　conscious　of　the　difference…　that　is；　what　the　differenc