the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第87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！


let　us　take　for　granted　that　an　object　may　be　found　in　experience
for　this　transcendental　idea；　the　empirical　intuition　of　such　an
object　must　then　be　recognized　to　contain　absolutely　no　manifold
with　its　parts　external　to　each　other；　and　connected　into　unity。
Now；　as　we　cannot　reason　from　the　non…consciousness　of　such　a　manifold
to　the　impossibility　of　its　existence　in　the　intuition　of　an　object；
and　as　the　proof　of　this　impossibility　is　necessary　for　the
establishment　and　proof　of　absolute　simplicity；　it　follows　that　this
simplicity　cannot　be　inferred　from　any　perception　whatever。　As；
therefore；　an　absolutely　simple　object　cannot　be　given　in　any
experience；　and　the　world　of　sense　must　be　considered　as　the　sum　total
of　all　possible　experiences：　nothing　simple　exists　in　the　world。
　　This　second　proposition　in　the　antithesis　has　a　more　extended　aim
than　the　first。　The　first　merely　banishes　the　simple　from　the
intuition　of　the　posite；　while　the　second　drives　it　entirely　out　of
nature。　Hence　we　were　unable　to　demonstrate　it　from　the　conception
of　a　given　object　of　external　intuition　（of　the　posite）；　but　we
were　obliged　to　prove　it　from　the　relation　of　a　given　object　to　a
possible　experience　in　general。


　　　　　　　　　　　　OBSERVATIONS　ON　THE　SECOND　ANTINOMY。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　THESIS。

　　When　I　speak　of　a　whole；　which　necessarily　consists　of　simple　parts；
I　understand　thereby　only　a　substantial　whole；　as　the　true
posite；　that　is　to　say；　I　understand　that　contingent　unity　of　the
manifold　which　is　given　as　perfectly　isolated　（at　least　in　thought）；
placed　in　reciprocal　connection；　and　thus　constituted　a　unity。　Space
ought　not　to　be　called　a　positum　but　a　totum；　for　its　parts　are
possible　in　the　whole；　and　not　the　whole　by　means　of　the　parts。　It
might　perhaps　be　called　a　positum　ideale；　but　not　a　positum
reale。　But　this　is　of　no　importance。　As　space　is　not　a　posite　of
substances　（and　not　even　of　real　accidents）；　if　I　abstract　all
position　therein…　nothing；　not　even　a　point；　remains；　for　a　point
is　possible　only　as　the　limit　of　a　space…　consequently　of　a　posite。
Space　and　time；　therefore；　do　not　consist　of　simple　parts。　That
which　belongs　only　to　the　condition　or　state　of　a　substance；　even
although　it　possesses　a　quantity　（motion　or　change；　for　example）；
likewise　does　not　consist　of　simple　parts。　That　is　to　say；　a　certain
degree　of　change　does　not　originate　from　the　addition　of　many　simple
changes。　Our　inference　of　the　simple　from　the　posite　is　valid
only　of　self…subsisting　things。　But　the　accidents　of　a　state　are　not
self…subsistent。　The　proof；　then；　for　the　necessity　of　the　simple；
as　the　ponent　part　of　all　that　is　substantial　and　posite；　may
prove　a　failure；　and　the　whole　case　of　this　thesis　be　lost；　if　we
carry　the　proposition　too　far；　and　wish　to　make　it　valid　of　everything
that　is　posite　without　distinction…　as　indeed　has　really　now　and
then　happened。　Besides；　I　am　here　speaking　only　of　the　simple；　in　so
far　as　it　is　necessarily　given　in　the　posite…　the　latter　being
capable　of　solution　into　the　former　as　its　ponent　parts。　The　proper
signification　of　the　word　monas　（as　employed　by　Leibnitz）　ought　to
relate　to　the　simple；　given　immediately　as　simple　substance　（for
example；　in　consciousness）；　and　not　as　an　element　of　the　posite。　As
an　clement；　the　term　atomus　would　be　more　appropriate。　And　as　I　wish
to　prove　the　existence　of　simple　substances；　only　in　relation　to；
and　as　the　elements　of；　the　posite；　I　might　term　the　antithesis
of　the　second　Antinomy；　transcendental　Atomistic。　But　as　this　word　has
long　been　employed　to　designate　a　particular　theory　of　corporeal
phenomena　（moleculae）；　and　thus　presupposes　a　basis　of　empirical
conceptions；　I　prefer　calling　it　the　dialectical　principle　of
Monadology。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ANTITHESIS。

　　Against　the　assertion　of　the　infinite　subdivisibility　of　matter
whose　ground　of　proof　is　purely　mathematical；　objections　have　been
alleged　by　the　Monadists。　These　objections　lay　themselves　open；　at
first　sight；　to　suspicion；　from　the　fact　that　they　do　not　recognize
the　clearest　mathematical　proofs　as　propositions　relating　to　the
constitution　of　space；　in　so　far　as　it　is　really　the　formal
condition　of　the　possibility　of　all　matter；　but　regard　them　merely
as　inferences　from　abstract　but　arbitrary　conceptions；　which　cannot
have　any　application　to　real　things。　just　as　if　it　were　possible　to
imagine　another　mode　of　intuition　than　that　given　in　the　primitive
intuition　of　space；　and　just　as　if　its　a　priori　determinations　did　not
apply　to　everything；　the　existence　of　which　is　possible；　from　the　fact
alone　of　its　filling　space。　If　we　listen　to　them；　we　shall　find
ourselves　required　to　cogitate；　in　addition　to　the　mathematical　point；
which　is　simple…　not；　however；　a　part；　but　a　mere　limit　of　space…
physical　points；　which　are　indeed　likewise　simple；　but　possess　the
peculiar　property；　as　parts　of　space；　of　filling　it　merely　by　their
aggregation。　I　shall　not　repeat　here　the　mon　and　clear
refutations　of　this　absurdity；　which　are　to　be　found　everywhere　in
numbers：　every　one　knows　that　it　is　impossible　to　undermine　the
evidence　of　mathematics　by　mere　discursive　conceptions；　I　shall　only
remark　that；　if　in　this　case　philosophy　endeavours　to　gain　an
advantage　over　mathematics　by　sophistical　artifices；　it　is　because
it　forgets　that　the　discussion　relates　solely　to　Phenomena　and　their
conditions。　It　is　not　sufficient　to　find　the　conception　of　the
simple　for　the　pure　conception　of　the　posite；　but　we　must
discover　for　the　intuition　of　the　posite　（matter）；　the　intuition　of
the　simple。　Now　this；　according　to　the　laws　of　sensibility；　and
consequently　in　the　case　of　objects　of　sense；　is　utterly　impossible。
In　the　case　of　a　whole　posed　of　substances；　which　is　cogitated
solely　by　the　pure　understanding；　it　may　be　necessary　to　be　in
possession　of　the　simple　before　position　is　possible。　But　this　does
not　hold　good　of　the　Totum　substantiale　phaenomenon；　which；　as　an
empirical　intuition　in　space；　possesses　the　necessary　property　of
containing　no　simple　part；　for　the　very　reason　that　no　part　of　space
is　simple。　Meanwhile；　the　Monadists　have　been　subtle　enough　to
escape　from　this　difficulty；　by　presupposing　intuition　and　the
dynamical　relation　of　substances　as　the　condition　of　the　possibility
of　space；　instead　of　regarding　space　as　the　condition　of　the
possibility　of　the　objects　of　external　intuition；　that　is；　of
bodies。　Now　we　have　a　conception　of　bodies　only　as　phenomena；　and；
as　such；　they　necessarily　presuppose　space　as　the　condition　of　all
external　phenomena。　The　evasion　is　therefore　in　vain；　as；　indeed；　we
have　sufficiently　shown　in　our　Aesthetic。　If　bodies　were　things　in
themselves；　the　proof　of　the　Monadists　would　be　unexceptionable。
　　The　second　dialectical　assertion　possesses　the　peculiarity　of　having
opposed　to　it　a　dogmatical　proposition；　which；　among　all　such
sophistical　statements；　is　the　only　one　that　undertakes　to　prove　in
the　case　of　an　object　of　experience；　that　which　is　properly　a
transcendental　idea…　the　absolute　simplicity　of　substance。　The
proposition　is　that　the　object　of　the　internal　sense；　the　thinking
Ego；　is　an　absolute　simple　substance。　Without　at　present　entering　upon
this　subject…　as　it　has　been　considered　at　length　in　a　former　chapter…
I　shall　merely　remark　that；　if　something　is　cogitated　merely　as　an
object；　without　the　addition　of　any　synthetical　determination　of　its
intuition…　as　happens　in　the　case　of　the　bare　representation；　I…　it　is
certain　that　no　manifold　and　no　position　can　be　perceived　in　such　a
representation。　As；　moreover；　the　predicates　whereby　I　cogitate　this
object　are　merely　intuitions　of　the　internal　sense；　there　cannot　be
discovered　in　them　anything　to　prove　the　existence　of　a　manifold　whose
parts　are　external　to　each　other；　and；　consequently；　nothing　to
prove　the　existence　of　real　position。　Consciousness；　therefore；
is　so　constituted　that；　inasmuch　as　the　thinking　subject　is　at　the
same　time　its　own　object；　it　cannot　divide　itself…　although　it　can
divide　its　inhering　determinations。　For　every　object　in　relation　to
itself　is　absolute　unity。　Nevertheless；　if　the　s