the critique of pure reason-第14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！



be　found　to　fail；　at　least　for　a　canon　of　pure　reason；　according　to

which　the　complete　system　of　the　philosophy　of　pure　reason；　whether　it

extend　or　limit　the　bounds　of　that　reason；　might　one　day　be　set

forth　both　analytically　and　synthetically。　For　that　this　is

possible；　nay；　that　such　a　system　is　not　of　so　great　extent　as　to

preclude　the　hope　of　its　ever　being　completed；　is　evident。　For　we　have

not　here　to　do　with　the　nature　of　outward　objects；　which　is

infinite；　but　solely　with　the　mind；　which　judges　of　the　nature　of

objects；　and；　again；　with　the　mind　only　in　respect　of　its　cognition

a　priori。　And　the　object　of　our　investigations；　as　it　is　not　to　be

sought　without；　but；　altogether　within；　ourselves；　cannot　remain

concealed；　and　in　all　probability　is　limited　enough　to　be　completely

surveyed　and　fairly　estimated；　according　to　its　worth　or

worthlessness。　Still　less　let　the　reader　here　expect　a　critique　of

books　and　systems　of　pure　reason；　our　present　object　is　exclusively

a　critique　of　the　faculty　of　pure　reason　itself。　Only　when　we　make

this　critique　our　foundation；　do　we　possess　a　pure　touchstone　for

estimating　the　philosophical　value　of　ancient　and　modern　writings　on

this　subject；　and　without　this　criterion；　the　incompetent　historian　or

judge　decides　upon　and　corrects　the　groundless　assertions　of　others

with　his　own；　which　have　themselves　just　as　little　foundation。

　　Transcendental　philosophy　is　the　idea　of　a　science；　for　which　the

Critique　of　Pure　Reason　must　sketch　the　whole　plan

architectonically；　that　is；　from　principles；　with　a　full　guarantee　for

the　validity　and　stability　of　all　the　parts　which　enter　into　the

building。　It　is　the　system　of　all　the　principles　of　pure　reason。　If

this　Critique　itself　does　not　assume　the　title　of　transcendental

philosophy；　it　is　only　because；　to　be　a　complete　system；　it　ought　to

contain　a　full　analysis　of　all　human　knowledge　a　priori。　Our

critique　must；　indeed；　lay　before　us　a　complete　enumeration　of　all　the

radical　conceptions　which　constitute　the　said　pure　knowledge。　But　from

the　complete　analysis　of　these　conceptions　themselves；　as　also　from

a　complete　investigation　of　those　derived　from　them；　it　abstains

with　reason；　partly　because　it　would　be　deviating　from　the　end　in　view

to　occupy　itself　with　this　analysis；　since　this　process　is　not

attended　with　the　difficulty　and　insecurity　to　be　found　in　the

synthesis；　to　which　our　critique　is　entirely　devoted；　and　partly

because　it　would　be　inconsistent　with　the　unity　of　our　plan　to

burden　this　essay　with　the　vindication　of　the　completeness　of　such

an　analysis　and　deduction；　with　which；　after　all；　we　have　at　present

nothing　to　do。　This　completeness　of　the　analysis　of　these　radical

conceptions；　as　well　as　of　the　deduction　from　the　conceptions　a　priori

which　may　be　given　by　the　analysis；　we　can；　however；　easily　attain；

provided　only　that　we　are　in　possession　of　all　these　radical

conceptions；　which　are　to　serve　as　principles　of　the　synthesis；　and

that　in　respect　of　this　main　purpose　nothing　is　wanting。

　　To　the　Critique　of　Pure　Reason；　therefore；　belongs　all　that

constitutes　transcendental　philosophy；　and　it　is　the　complete　idea

of　transcendental　philosophy；　but　still　not　the　science　itself；

because　it　only　proceeds　so　far　with　the　analysis　as　is　necessary　to

the　power　of　judging　completely　of　our　synthetical　knowledge　a　priori。

　　The　principal　thing　we　must　attend　to；　in　the　division　of　the

parts　of　a　science　like　this；　is　that　no　conceptions　must　enter　it

which　contain　aught　empirical；　in　other　words；　that　the　knowledge　a

priori　must　be　completely　pure。　Hence；　although　the　highest　principles

and　fundamental　conceptions　of　morality　are　certainly　cognitions　a

priori；　yet　they　do　not　belong　to　transcendental　philosophy；

because；　though　they　certainly　do　not　lay　the　conceptions　of　pain；

pleasure；　desires；　inclinations；　etc。　（which　are　all　of　empirical

origin）；　at　the　foundation　of　its　precepts；　yet　still　into　the

conception　of　duty…　as　an　obstacle　to　be　overcome；　or　as　an　incitement

which　should　not　be　made　into　a　motive…　these　empirical　conceptions

must　necessarily　enter；　in　the　construction　of　a　system　of　pure

morality。　Transcendental　philosophy　is　consequently　a　philosophy　of

the　pure　and　merely　speculative　reason。　For　all　that　is　practical；

so　far　as　it　contains　motives；　relates　to　feelings；　and　these　belong

to　empirical　sources　of　cognition。

　　If　we　wish　to　divide　this　science　from　the　universal　point　of　view

of　a　science　in　general；　it　ought　to　comprehend；　first；　a　Doctrine

of　the　Elements；　and；　secondly；　a　Doctrine　of　the　Method　of　pure

reason。　Each　of　these　main　divisions　will　have　its　subdivisions；　the

separate　reasons　for　which　we　cannot　here　particularize。　Only　so

much　seems　necessary；　by　way　of　introduction　of　premonition；　that

there　are　two　sources　of　human　knowledge　（which　probably　spring　from　a

common；　but　to　us　unknown　root）；　namely；　sense　and　understanding。　By

the　former；　objects　are　given　to　us；　by　the　latter；　thought。　So　far　as

the　faculty　of　sense　may　contain　representations　a　priori；　which

form　the　conditions　under　which　objects　are　given；　in　so　far　it

belongs　to　transcendental　philosophy。　The　transcendental　doctrine　of

sense　must　form　the　first　part　of　our　science　of　elements；　because　the

conditions　under　which　alone　the　objects　of　human　knowledge　are

given　must　precede　those　under　which　they　are　thought。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　I。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　TRANSCENDENTAL　DOCTRINE　OF　ELEMENTS。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　FIRST　PART。　TRANSCENDENTAL　AESTHETIC。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SS　I。　Introductory。



　　In　whatsoever　mode；　or　by　whatsoever　means；　our　knowledge　may　relate

to　objects；　it　is　at　least　quite　clear　that　the　only　manner　in　which

it　immediately　relates　to　them　is　by　means　of　an　intuition。　To　this　as

the　indispensable　groundwork；　all　thought　points。　But　an　intuition　can

take　place　only　in　so　far　as　the　object　is　given　to　us。　This；　again；

is　only　possible；　to　man　at　least；　on　condition　that　the　object　affect

the　mind　in　a　certain　manner。　The　capacity　for　receiving

representations　（receptivity）　through　the　mode　in　which　we　are

affected　by　objects；　objects；　is　called　sensibility。　By　means　of

sensibility；　therefore；　objects　are　given　to　us；　and　it　alone

furnishes　us　with　intuitions；　by　the　understanding　they　are　thought；

and　from　it　arise　conceptions。　But　an　thought　must　directly；　or

indirectly；　by　means　of　certain　signs；　relate　ultimately　to

intuitions；　consequently；　with　us；　to　sensibility；　because　in　no　other

way　can　an　object　be　given　to　us。

　　The　effect　of　an　object　upon　the　faculty　of　representation；　so　far

as　we　are　affected　by　the　said　object；　is　sensation。　That　sort　of

intuition　which　relates　to　an　object　by　means　of　sensation　is　called

an　empirical　intuition。　The　undetermined　object　of　an　empirical

intuition　is　called　phenomenon。　That　which　in　the　phenomenon

corresponds　to　the　sensation；　I　term　its　matter；　but　that　which

effects　that　the　content　of　the　phenomenon　can　be　arranged　under

certain　relations；　I　call　its　form。　But　that　in　which　our　sensations

are　merely　arranged；　and　by　which　they　are　susceptible　of　assuming　a

certain　form；　cannot　be　itself　sensation。　It　is；　then；　the　matter　of

all　phenomena　that　is　given　to　us　a　posteriori；　the　form　must　lie

ready　a　priori　for　them　in　the　mind；　and　consequently　can　be

regarded　separately　from　all　sensation。

　　I　call　all　representations　pure；　in　the　transcendental　meaning　of

the　word；　wherein　nothing　is　met　with　that　belongs　to　sensation。　And

accordingly　we　find　existing　in　the　mind　a　priori；　the　pure　form　of

sensuous　intuitions　in　general；　in　which　all　the　manifold　content　of

the　phenomenal　world　is　arranged　and　viewed　under　certain　relations。

This　pure　form　of　sensibility　I　shall　call　pure　intuition。　Thus；　if

I　take　away　from　our　representation　of　a　body　all　that　the

understanding　thinks　as　belonging　to　it；　as　substance；　force