the critique of pure reason-第102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！



correction　of　our　judgements　on　these　subjects　of　thought。



　　　　　SECTION　VIII。　Regulative　Principle　of　Pure　Reason　in　relation

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　to　the　Cosmological　Ideas。



　　The　cosmological　principle　of　totality　could　not　give　us　any　certain

knowledge　in　regard　to　the　maximum　in　the　series　of　conditions　in

the　world　of　sense；　considered　as　a　thing　in　itself。　The　actual

regress　in　the　series　is　the　only　means　of　approaching　this　maximum。

This　principle　of　pure　reason；　therefore；　may　still　be　considered　as

valid…　not　as　an　axiom　enabling　us　to　cogitate　totality　in　the

object　as　actual；　but　as　a　problem　for　the　understanding；　which

requires　it　to　institute　and　to　continue；　in　conformity　with　the

idea　of　totality　in　the　mind；　the　regress　in　the　series　of　the

conditions　of　a　given　conditioned。　For　in　the　world　of　sense；　that　is；

in　space　and　time；　every　condition　which　we　discover　in　our

investigation　of　phenomena　is　itself　conditioned；　because　sensuous

objects　are　not　things　in　themselves　（in　which　case　an　absolutely

unconditioned　might　be　reached　in　the　progress　of　cognition）；　but

are　merely　empirical　representations　the　conditions　of　which　must

always　be　found　in　intuition。　The　principle　of　reason　is　therefore

properly　a　mere　rule…　prescribing　a　regress　in　the　series　of

conditions　for　given　phenomena；　and　prohibiting　any　pause　or　rest　on

an　absolutely　unconditioned。　It　is；　therefore；　not　a　principle　of

the　possibility　of　experience　or　of　the　empirical　cognition　of

sensuous　objects…　consequently　not　a　principle　of　the　understanding；

for　every　experience　is　confined　within　certain　proper　limits

determined　by　the　given　intuition。　Still　less　is　it　a　constitutive

principle　of　reason　authorizing　us　to　extend　our　conception　of　the

sensuous　world　beyond　all　possible　experience。　It　is　merely　a

principle　for　the　enlargement　and　extension　of　experience　as　far　as　is

possible　for　human　faculties。　It　forbids　us　to　consider　any

empirical　limits　as　absolute。　It　is；　hence；　a　principle　of　reason；

which；　as　a　rule；　dictates　how　we　ought　to　proceed　in　our　empirical

regress；　but　is　unable　to　anticipate　or　indicate　prior　to　the

empirical　regress　what　is　given　in　the　object　itself。　I　have　termed　it

for　this　reason　a　regulative　principle　of　reason；　while　the

principle　of　the　absolute　totality　of　the　series　of　conditions；　as

existing　in　itself　and　given　in　the　object；　is　a　constitutive

cosmological　principle。　This　distinction　will　at　once　demonstrate

the　falsehood　of　the　constitutive　principle；　and　prevent　us　from

attributing　（by　a　transcendental　subreptio）　objective　reality　to　an

idea；　which　is　valid　only　as　a　rule。

　　In　order　to　understand　the　proper　meaning　of　this　rule　of　pure

reason；　we　must　notice　first　that　it　cannot　tell　us　what　the　object

is；　but　only　how　the　empirical　regress　is　to　be　proceeded　with　in

order　to　attain　to　the　complete　conception　of　the　object。　If　it　gave

us　any　information　in　respect　to　the　former　statement；　it　would　be　a

constitutive　principle…　a　principle　impossible　from　the　nature　of　pure

reason。　It　will　not　therefore　enable　us　to　establish　any　such

conclusions　as：　〃The　series　of　conditions　for　a　given　conditioned　is

in　itself　finite。〃　or；　〃It　is　infinite。〃　For；　in　this　case；　we

should　be　cogitating　in　the　mere　idea　of　absolute　totality；　an

object　which　is　not　and　cannot　be　given　in　experience；　inasmuch　as

we　should　be　attributing　a　reality　objective　and　independent　of　the

empirical　synthesis；　to　a　series　of　phenomena。　This　idea　of　reason

cannot　then　be　regarded　as　valid…　except　as　a　rule　for　the

regressive　synthesis　in　the　series　of　conditions；　according　to　which

we　must　proceed　from　the　conditioned；　through　all　intermediate　and

subordinate　conditions；　up　to　the　unconditioned；　although　this　goal　is

unattained　and　unattainable。　For　the　absolutely　unconditioned　cannot

be　discovered　in　the　sphere　of　experience。

　　We　now　proceed　to　determine　clearly　our　notion　of　a　synthesis

which　can　never　be　complete。　There　are　two　terms　commonly　employed　for

this　purpose。　These　terms　are　regarded　as　expressions　of　different　and

distinguishable　notions；　although　the　ground　of　the　distinction　has

never　been　clearly　exposed。　The　term　employed　by　the　mathematicians　is

progressus　in　infinitum。　The　philosophers　prefer　the　expression

progressus　in　indefinitum。　Without　detaining　the　reader　with　an

examination　of　the　reasons　for　such　a　distinction；　or　with　remarks

on　the　right　or　wrong　use　of　the　terms；　I　shall　endeavour　clearly　to

determine　these　conceptions；　so　far　as　is　necessary　for　the　purpose　in

this　Critique。

　　We　may；　with　propriety；　say　of　a　straight　line；　that　it　may　be

produced　to　infinity。　In　this　case　the　distinction　between　a

progressus　in　infinitum　and　a　progressus　in　indefinitum　is　a　mere

piece　of　subtlety。　For；　although　when　we　say；　〃Produce　a　straight

line；〃　it　is　more　correct　to　say　in　indefinitum　than　in　infinitum；

because　the　former　means；　〃Produce　it　as　far　as　you　please；〃　the

second；　〃You　must　not　cease　to　produce　it〃；　the　expression　in

infinitum　is；　when　we　are　speaking　of　the　power　to　do　it；　perfectly

correct；　for　we　can　always　make　it　longer　if　we　please…　on　to

infinity。　And　this　remark　holds　good　in　all　cases；　when　we　speak　of

a　progressus；　that　is；　an　advancement　from　the　condition　to　the

conditioned；　this　possible　advancement　always　proceeds　to　infinity。　We

may　proceed　from　a　given　pair　in　the　descending　line　of　generation

from　father　to　son；　and　cogitate　a　never…ending　line　of　descendants

from　it。　For　in　such　a　case　reason　does　not　demand　absolute　totality

in　the　series；　because　it　does　not　presuppose　it　as　a　condition　and　as

given　（datum）；　but　merely　as　conditioned；　and　as　capable　of　being

given　（dabile）。

　　Very　different　is　the　case　with　the　problem：　〃How　far　the　regress；

which　ascends　from　the　given　conditioned　to　the　conditions；　must

extend〃；　whether　I　can　say：　〃It　is　a　regress　in　infinitum；〃　or　only

〃in　indefinitum〃；　and　whether；　for　example；　setting　out　from　the　human

beings　at　present　alive　in　the　world；　I　may　ascend　in　the　series　of

their　ancestors；　in　infinitum…　mr　whether　all　that　can　be　said　is；

that　so　far　as　I　have　proceeded；　I　have　discovered　no　empirical　ground

for　considering　the　series　limited；　so　that　I　am　justified；　and

indeed；　compelled　to　search　for　ancestors　still　further　back；　although

I　am　not　obliged　by　the　idea　of　reason　to　presuppose　them。

　　My　answer　to　this　question　is：　〃If　the　series　is　given　in

empirical　intuition　as　a　whole；　the　regress　in　the　series　of　its

internal　conditions　proceeds　in　infinitum；　but；　if　only　one　member

of　the　series　is　given；　from　which　the　regress　is　to　proceed　to

absolute　totality；　the　regress　is　possible　only　in　indefinitum。〃　For

example；　the　division　of　a　portion　of　matter　given　within　certain

limits…　of　a　body；　that　is…　proceeds　in　infinitum。　For；　as　the

condition　of　this　whole　is　its　part；　and　the　condition　of　the　part　a

part　of　the　part；　and　so　on；　and　as　in　this　regress　of　decomposition

an　unconditioned　indivisible　member　of　the　series　of　conditions　is　not

to　be　found；　there　are　no　reasons　or　grounds　in　experience　for

stopping　in　the　division；　but；　on　the　contrary；　the　more　remote

members　of　the　division　are　actually　and　empirically　given　prior　to

this　division。　That　is　to　say；　the　division　proceeds　to　infinity。　On

the　other　hand；　the　series　of　ancestors　of　any　given　human　being　is

not　given；　in　its　absolute　totality；　in　any　experience；　and　yet　the

regress　proceeds　from　every　genealogical　member　of　this　series　to

one　still　higher；　and　does　not　meet　with　any　empirical　limit

presenting　an　absolutely　unconditioned　member　of　the　series。　But　as

the　members　of　such　a　series　are　not　contained　in　the　empirical

intuition　of　the　whole；　prior　to　the　regress；　this　regress　does　not

proceed　to　infinity；　but　only　in　indefinitum；　that　is；　we　are　called

upon　to　discover　other　and　higher　members；　which　are　themselves　al