the critique of pure reason-第18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！



it　is　nothing；　and　cannot　be　reckoned　as　subsisting　or　inhering　in

objects　as　things　in　themselves；　independently　of　its　relation　to

our　intuition。　this　ideality；　like　that　of　space；　is　not　to　be

proved　or　illustrated　by　fallacious　analogies　with　sensations；　for

this　reason…　that　in　such　arguments　or　illustrations；　we　make　the

presupposition　that　the　phenomenon；　in　which　such　and　such

predicates　inhere；　has　objective　reality；　while　in　this　case　we　can

only　find　such　an　objective　reality　as　is　itself　empirical；　that　is；

regards　the　object　as　a　mere　phenomenon。　In　reference　to　this　subject；

see　the　remark　in　Section　I　（SS　4）



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SS　8　Elucidation。



　　Against　this　theory；　which　grants　empirical　reality　to　time；　but

denies　to　it　absolute　and　transcendental　reality；　I　have　heard　from

intelligent　men　an　objection　so　unanimously　urged　that　I　conclude　that

it　must　naturally　present　itself　to　every　reader　to　whom　these

considerations　are　novel。　It　runs　thus：　〃Changes　are　real〃　（this　the

continual　change　in　our　own　representations　demonstrates；　even

though　the　existence　of　all　external　phenomena；　together　with　their

changes；　is　denied）。　Now；　changes　are　only　possible　in　time；　and

therefore　time　must　be　something　real。　But　there　is　no　difficulty　in

answering　this。　I　grant　the　whole　argument。　Time；　no　doubt；　is

something　real；　that　is；　it　is　the　real　form　of　our　internal

intuition。　It　therefore　has　subjective　reality；　in　reference　to　our

internal　experience；　that　is；　I　have　really　the　representation　of　time

and　of　my　determinations　therein。　Time；　therefore；　is　not　to　be

regarded　as　an　object；　but　as　the　mode　of　representation　of　myself

as　an　object。　But　if　I　could　intuite　myself；　or　be　intuited　by　another

being；　without　this　condition　of　sensibility；　then　those　very

determinations　which　we　now　represent　to　ourselves　as　changes；　would

present　to　us　a　knowledge　in　which　the　representation　of　time；　and

consequently　of　change；　would　not　appear。　The　empirical　reality　of

time；　therefore；　remains；　as　the　condition　of　all　our　experience。

But　absolute　reality；　according　to　what　has　been　said　above；　cannot　be

granted　it。　Time　is　nothing　but　the　form　of　our　internal　intuition。*

If　we　take　away　from　it　the　special　condition　of　our　sensibility；

the　conception　of　time　also　vanishes；　and　it　inheres　not　in　the

objects　themselves；　but　solely　in　the　subject　（or　mind）　which　intuites

them。



　　*I　can　indeed　say　〃my　representations　follow　one　another；　or　are

successive〃；　but　this　means　only　that　we　are　conscious　of　them　as　in　a

succession；　that　is；　according　to　the　form　of　the　internal　sense。

Time；　therefore；　is　not　a　thing　in　itself；　nor　is　it　any　objective

determination　pertaining　to；　or　inherent　in　things。



　　But　the　reason　why　this　objection　is　so　unanimously　brought

against　our　doctrine　of　time；　and　that　too　by　disputants　who　cannot

start　any　intelligible　arguments　against　the　doctrine　of　the

ideality　of　space；　is　this…　they　have　no　hope　of　demonstrating

apodeictically　the　absolute　reality　of　space；　because　the　doctrine

of　idealism　is　against　them；　according　to　which　the　reality　of

external　objects　is　not　capable　of　any　strict　proof。　On　the　other

hand；　the　reality　of　the　object　of　our　internal　sense　（that　is；　myself

and　my　internal　state）　is　clear　immediately　through　consciousness。　The

former…　external　objects　in　space…　might　be　a　mere　delusion；　but　the

latter…　the　object　of　my　internal　perception…　is　undeniably　real。　They

do　not；　however；　reflect　that　both；　without　question　of　their

reality　as　representations；　belong　only　to　the　genus　phenomenon；　which

has　always　two　aspects；　the　one；　the　object　considered　as　a　thing　in

itself；　without　regard　to　the　mode　of　intuiting　it；　and　the　nature

of　which　remains　for　this　very　reason　problematical；　the　other；　the

form　of　our　intuition　of　the　object；　which　must　be　sought　not　in　the

object　as　a　thing　in　itself；　but　in　the　subject　to　which　it　appears…

which　form　of　intuition　nevertheless　belongs　really　and　necessarily　to

the　phenomenal　object。

　　Time　and　space　are；　therefore；　two　sources　of　knowledge；　from　which；

a　priori；　various　synthetical　cognitions　can　be　drawn。　Of　this　we　find

a　striking　example　in　the　cognitions　of　space　and　its　relations；　which

form　the　foundation　of　pure　mathematics。　They　are　the　two　pure　forms

of　all　intuitions；　and　thereby　make　synthetical　propositions　a

priori　possible。　But　these　sources　of　knowledge　being　merely

conditions　of　our　sensibility；　do　therefore；　and　as　such；　strictly

determine　their　own　range　and　purpose；　in　that　they　do　not　and

cannot　present　objects　as　things　in　themselves；　but　are　applicable

to　them　solely　in　so　far　as　they　are　considered　as　sensuous　phenomena。

The　sphere　of　phenomena　is　the　only　sphere　of　their　validity；　and　if

we　venture　out　of　this；　no　further　objective　use　can　be　made　of

them。　For　the　rest；　this　formal　reality　of　time　and　space　leaves　the

validity　of　our　empirical　knowledge　unshaken；　for　our　certainty　in

that　respect　is　equally　firm；　whether　these　forms　necessarily　inhere

in　the　things　themselves；　or　only　in　our　intuitions　of　them。　On　the

other　hand；　those　who　maintain　the　absolute　reality　of　time　and　space；

whether　as　essentially　subsisting；　or　only　inhering；　as　modifications；

in　things；　must　find　themselves　at　utter　variance　with　the

principles　of　experience　itself。　For；　if　they　decide　for　the　first

view；　and　make　space　and　time　into　substances；　this　being　the　side

taken　by　mathematical　natural　philosophers；　they　must　admit　two

self…subsisting　nonentities；　infinite　and　eternal；　which　exist　（yet

without　there　being　anything　real）　for　the　purpose　of　containing　in

themselves　everything　that　is　real。　If　they　adopt　the　second　view　of

inherence；　which　is　preferred　by　some　metaphysical　natural

philosophers；　and　regard　space　and　time　as　relations　（contiguity　in

space　or　succession　in　time）；　abstracted　from　experience；　though

represented　confusedly　in　this　state　of　separation；　they　find

themselves　in　that　case　necessitated　to　deny　the　validity　of

mathematical　doctrines　a　priori　in　reference　to　real　things　（for

example；　in　space）…　at　all　events　their　apodeictic　certainty。　For　such

certainty　cannot　be　found　in　an　a　posteriori　proposition；　and　the

conceptions　a　priori　of　space　and　time　are；　according　to　this　opinion；

mere　creations　of　the　imagination；　having　their　source　really　in

experience；　inasmuch　as；　out　of　relations　abstracted　from

experience；　imagination　has　made　up　something　which　contains；

indeed；　general　statements　of　these　relations；　yet　of　which　no

application　can　be　made　without　the　restrictions　attached　thereto　by

nature。　The　former　of　these　parties　gains　this　advantage；　that　they

keep　the　sphere　of　phenomena　free　for　mathematical　science。　On　the

other　hand；　these　very　conditions　（space　and　time）　embarrass　them

greatly；　when　the　understanding　endeavours　to　pass　the　limits　of

that　sphere。　The　latter　has；　indeed；　this　advantage；　that　the

representations　of　space　and　time　do　not　come　in　their　way　when　they

wish　to　judge　of　objects；　not　as　phenomena；　but　merely　in　their

relation　to　the　understanding。　Devoid；　however；　of　a　true　and

objectively　valid　a　priori　intuition；　they　can　neither　furnish　any

basis　for　the　possibility　of　mathematical　cognitions　a　priori；　nor

bring　the　propositions　of　experience　into　necessary　accordance　with

those　of　mathematics。　In　our　theory　of　the　true　nature　of　these　two

original　forms　of　the　sensibility；　both　difficulties　are　surmounted。

　　In　conclusion；　that　transcendental　aesthetic　cannot　contain　any　more

than　these　two　elements…　space　and　time；　is　sufficiently　obvious

from　the　fact　that　all　other　conceptions　appertaining　to

sensibility；　even　that　of　motion；　which　unites　in　itself　both

elements；　presuppose　something　empirical。　Motion；　for　example；

presupposes　the　perception　of　something　movable。　But　space

considered　in　itself　contains　nothing　movabl