the critique of pure reason-第17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！



their　possibility；　cannot　be　so　annulled。

　　3。　On　this　necessity　a　priori　is　also　founded　the　possibility　of

apodeictic　principles　of　the　relations　of　time；　or　axioms　of　time　in

general；　such　as：　〃Time　has　only　one　dimension；〃　〃Different　times

are　not　coexistent　but　successive〃　（as　different　spaces　are　not

successive　but　coexistent）。　These　principles　cannot　be　derived　from

experience；　for　it　would　give　neither　strict　universality；　nor

apodeictic　certainty。　We　should　only　be　able　to　say；　〃so　common

experience　teaches　us；〃　but　not　〃it　must　be　so。〃　They　are　valid　as

rules；　through　which；　in　general；　experience　is　possible；　and　they

instruct　us　respecting　experience；　and　not　by　means　of　it。

　　4。　Time　is　not　a　discursive；　or　as　it　is　called；　general　conception；

but　a　pure　form　of　the　sensuous　intuition。　Different　times　are

merely　parts　of　one　and　the　same　time。　But　the　representation　which

can　only　be　given　by　a　single　object　is　an　intuition。　Besides；　the

proposition　that　different　times　cannot　be　coexistent　could　not　be

derived　from　a　general　conception。　For　this　proposition　is

synthetical；　and　therefore　cannot　spring　out　of　conceptions　alone。

It　is　therefore　contained　immediately　in　the　intuition　and

representation　of　time。

　　5。　The　infinity　of　time　signifies　nothing　more　than　that　every

determined　quantity　of　time　is　possible　only　through　limitations　of

one　time　lying　at　the　foundation。　Consequently；　the　original

representation；　time；　must　be　given　as　unlimited。　But　as　the

determinate　representation　of　the　parts　of　time　and　of　every

quantity　of　an　object　can　only　be　obtained　by　limitation；　the　complete

representation　of　time　must　not　be　furnished　by　means　of

conceptions；　for　these　contain　only　partial　representations。

Conceptions；　on　the　contrary；　must　have　immediate　intuition　for

their　basis。



　　　SS　6　Transcendental　Exposition　of　the　Conception　of　Time。



　　I　may　here　refer　to　what　is　said　above　（SS　5；　3）；　where；　for　or　sake

of　brevity；　I　have　placed　under　the　head　of　metaphysical　exposition；

that　which　is　properly　transcendental。　Here　I　shall　add　that　the

conception　of　change；　and　with　it　the　conception　of　motion；　as

change　of　place；　is　possible　only　through　and　in　the　representation　of

time；　that　if　this　representation　were　not　an　intuition　（internal）　a

priori；　no　conception；　of　whatever　kind；　could　render　comprehensible

the　possibility　of　change；　in　other　words；　of　a　conjunction　of

contradictorily　opposed　predicates　in　one　and　the　same　object；　for

example；　the　presence　of　a　thing　in　a　place　and　the　non…presence　of

the　same　thing　in　the　same　place。　It　is　only　in　time　that　it　is

possible　to　meet　with　two　contradictorily　opposed　determinations　in

one　thing；　that　is；　after　each　other。　thus　our　conception　of　time

explains　the　possibility　of　so　much　synthetical　knowledge　a　priori；　as

is　exhibited　in　the　general　doctrine　of　motion；　which　is　not　a

little　fruitful。



　　　　　　　　　SS　7　Conclusions　from　the　above　Conceptions。



　　（a）　Time　is　not　something　which　subsists　of　itself；　or　which　inheres

in　things　as　an　objective　determination；　and　therefore　remains；　when

abstraction　is　made　of　the　subjective　conditions　of　the　intuition　of

things。　For　in　the　former　case；　it　would　be　something　real；　yet

without　presenting　to　any　power　of　perception　any　real　object。　In

the　latter　case；　as　an　order　or　determination　inherent　in　things

themselves；　it　could　not　be　antecedent　to　things；　as　their

condition；　nor　discerned　or　intuited　by　means　of　synthetical

propositions　a　priori。　But　all　this　is　quite　possible　when　we　regard

time　as　merely　the　subjective　condition　under　which　all　our　intuitions

take　place。　For　in　that　case；　this　form　of　the　inward　intuition　can　be

represented　prior　to　the　objects；　and　consequently　a　priori。

　　（b）　Time　is　nothing　else　than　the　form　of　the　internal　sense；　that

is；　of　the　intuitions　of　self　and　of　our　internal　state。　For　time

cannot　be　any　determination　of　outward　phenomena。　It　has　to　do　neither

with　shape　nor　position；　on　the　contrary；　it　determines　the　relation

of　representations　in　our　internal　state。　And　precisely　because　this

internal　intuition　presents　to　us　no　shape　or　form；　we　endeavour　to

supply　this　want　by　analogies；　and　represent　the　course　of　time　by　a

line　progressing　to　infinity；　the　content　of　which　constitutes　a

series　which　is　only　of　one　dimension；　and　we　conclude　from　the

properties　of　this　line　as　to　all　the　properties　of　time；　with　this

single　exception；　that　the　parts　of　the　line　are　coexistent；　whilst

those　of　time　are　successive。　From　this　it　is　clear　also　that　the

representation　of　time　is　itself　an　intuition；　because　all　its

relations　can　be　expressed　in　an　external　intuition。

　　（c）　Time　is　the　formal　condition　a　priori　of　all　phenomena

whatsoever。　Space；　as　the　pure　form　of　external　intuition；　is

limited　as　a　condition　a　priori　to　external　phenomena　alone。　On　the

other　hand；　because　all　representations；　whether　they　have　or　have　not

external　things　for　their　objects；　still　in　themselves；　as

determinations　of　the　mind；　belong　to　our　internal　state；　and

because　this　internal　state　is　subject　to　the　formal　condition　of

the　internal　intuition；　that　is；　to　time…　time　is　a　condition　a　priori

of　all　phenomena　whatsoever…　the　immediate　condition　of　all

internal；　and　thereby　the　mediate　condition　of　all　external　phenomena。

If　I　can　say　a　priori；　〃All　outward　phenomena　are　in　space；　and

determined　a　priori　according　to　the　relations　of　space；〃　I　can

also；　from　the　principle　of　the　internal　sense；　affirm　universally；

〃All　phenomena　in　general；　that　is；　all　objects　of　the　senses；　are

in　time　and　stand　necessarily　in　relations　of　time。〃

　　If　we　abstract　our　internal　intuition　of　ourselves　and　all

external　intuitions；　possible　only　by　virtue　of　this　internal

intuition　and　presented　to　us　by　our　faculty　of　representation；　and

consequently　take　objects　as　they　are　in　themselves；　then　time　is

nothing。　It　is　only　of　objective　validity　in　regard　to　phenomena；

because　these　are　things　which　we　regard　as　objects　of　our　senses。

It　no　longer　objective　we；　make　abstraction　of　the　sensuousness　of　our

intuition；　in　other　words；　of　that　mode　of　representation　which　is

peculiar　to　us；　and　speak　of　things　in　general。　Time　is　therefore

merely　a　subjective　condition　of　our　（human）　intuition　（which　is

always　sensuous；　that　is；　so　far　as　we　are　affected　by　objects）；　and

in　itself；　independently　of　the　mind　or　subject；　is　nothing。

Nevertheless；　in　respect　of　all　phenomena；　consequently　of　all

things　which　come　within　the　sphere　of　our　experience；　it　is

necessarily　objective。　We　cannot　say；　〃All　things　are　in　time；〃

because　in　this　conception　of　things　in　general；　we　abstract　and

make　no　mention　of　any　sort　of　intuition　of　things。　But　this　is　the

proper　condition　under　which　time　belongs　to　our　representation　of

objects。　If　we　add　the　condition　to　the　conception；　and　say；　〃All

things；　as　phenomena；　that　is；　objects　of　sensuous　intuition；　are　in

time；〃　then　the　proposition　has　its　sound　objective　validity　and

universality　a　priori。

　　What　we　have　now　set　forth　teaches；　therefore；　the　empirical　reality

of　time；　that　is；　its　objective　validity　in　reference　to　all　objects

which　can　ever　be　presented　to　our　senses。　And　as　our　intuition　is

always　sensuous；　no　object　ever　can　be　presented　to　us　in

experience；　which　does　not　come　under　the　conditions　of　time。　On　the

other　hand；　we　deny　to　time　all　claim　to　absolute　reality；　that　is；　we

deny　that　it；　without　having　regard　to　the　form　of　our　sensuous

intuition；　absolutely　inheres　in　things　as　a　condition　or　property。

Such　properties　as　belong　to　objects　as　things　in　themselves　never　can

be　presented　to　us　through　the　medium　of　the　senses。　Herein

consists；　therefore；　the　transcendental　ideality　of　time；　according　to

which；　if　we　abstract　the　subjective　conditions　of　sensuous　intuition；

it　is　nothing；　and　cannot　be　reckoned　as　s