the critique of pure reason-第66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！



profundity。

　　Transcendental　topic；　on　the　contrary；　contains　nothing　more　than

the　above…mentioned　four　titles　of　all　comparison　and　distinction；

which　differ　from　categories　in　this　respect；　that　they　do　not

represent　the　object　according　to　that　which　constitutes　its

conception　（quantity；　reality）；　but　set　forth　merely　the　comparison　of

representations；　which　precedes　our　conceptions　of　things。　But　this

comparison　requires　a　previous　reflection；　that　is；　a　determination　of

the　place　to　which　the　representations　of　the　things　which　are

compared　belong；　whether；　to　wit；　they　are　cogitated　by　the　pure

understanding；　or　given　by　sensibility。

　　Conceptions　may　be　logically　compared　without　the　trouble　of

inquiring　to　what　faculty　their　objects　belong；　whether　as　noumena；　to

the　understanding；　or　as　phenomena；　to　sensibility。　If；　however；　we

wish　to　employ　these　conceptions　in　respect　of　objects；　previous

transcendental　reflection　is　necessary。　Without　this　reflection　I

should　make　a　very　unsafe　use　of　these　conceptions；　and　construct

pretended　synthetical　propositions　which　critical　reason　cannot

acknowledge　and　which　are　based　solely　upon　a　transcendental

amphiboly；　that　is；　upon　a　substitution　of　an　object　of　pure

understanding　for　a　phenomenon。

　　For　want　of　this　doctrine　of　transcendental　topic；　and

consequently　deceived　by　the　amphiboly　of　the　conceptions　of

reflection；　the　celebrated　Leibnitz　constructed　an　intellectual　system

of　the　world；　or　rather；　believed　himself　competent　to　cognize　the

internal　nature　of　things；　by　comparing　all　objects　merely　with　the

understanding　and　the　abstract　formal　conceptions　of　thought。　Our

table　of　the　conceptions　of　reflection　gives　us　the　unexpected

advantage　of　being　able　to　exhibit　the　distinctive　peculiarities　of

his　system　in　all　its　parts；　and　at　the　same　time　of　exposing　the

fundamental　principle　of　this　peculiar　mode　of　thought；　which　rested

upon　naught　but　a　misconception。　He　compared　all　things　with　each

other　merely　by　means　of　conceptions；　and　naturally　found　no　other

differences　than　those　by　which　the　understanding　distinguishes　its

pure　conceptions　one　from　another。　The　conditions　of　sensuous

intuition；　which　contain　in　themselves　their　own　means　of　distinction；

he　did　not　look　upon　as　primitive；　because　sensibility　was　to　him

but　a　confused　mode　of　representation　and　not　any　particular　source　of

representations。　A　phenomenon　was　for　him　the　representation　of　the

thing　in　itself；　although　distinguished　from　cognition　by　the

understanding　only　in　respect　of　the　logical　form…　the　former　with　its

usual　want　of　analysis　containing；　according　to　him；　a　certain　mixture

of　collateral　representations　in　its　conception　of　a　thing；　which　it

is　the　duty　of　the　understanding　to　separate　and　distinguish。　In　one

word；　Leibnitz　intellectualized　phenomena；　just　as　Locke；　in　his

system　of　noogony　（if　I　may　be　allowed　to　make　use　of　such

expressions）；　sensualized　the　conceptions　of　the　understanding；　that

is　to　say；　declared　them　to　be　nothing　more　than　empirical　or　abstract

conceptions　of　reflection。　Instead　of　seeking　in　the　understanding　and

sensibility　two　different　sources　of　representations；　which；

however；　can　present　us　with　objective　judgements　of　things　only　in

conjunction；　each　of　these　great　men　recognized　but　one　of　these

faculties；　which；　in　their　opinion；　applied　immediately　to　things　in

themselves；　the　other　having　no　duty　but　that　of　confusing　or

arranging　the　representations　of　the　former。

　　Accordingly；　the　objects　of　sense　were　compared　by　Leibnitz　as

things　in　general　merely　in　the　understanding。

　　1st。　He　compares　them　in　regard　to　their　identity　or　difference…

as　judged　by　the　understanding。　As；　therefore；　he　considered　merely

the　conceptions　of　objects；　and　not　their　position　in　intuition；　in

which　alone　objects　can　be　given；　and　left　quite　out　of　sight　the

transcendental　locale　of　these　conceptions…　whether；　that　is；　their

object　ought　to　be　classed　among　phenomena；　or　among　things　in

themselves；　it　was　to　be　expected　that　he　should　extend　the

application　of　the　principle　of　indiscernibles；　which　is　valid

solely　of　conceptions　of　things　in　general；　to　objects　of　sense

（mundus　phaenomenon）；　and　that　he　should　believe　that　he　had　thereby

contributed　in　no　small　degree　to　extend　our　knowledge　of　nature。　In

truth；　if　I　cognize　in　all　its　inner　determinations　a　drop　of　water　as

a　thing　in　itself；　I　cannot　look　upon　one　drop　as　different　from

another；　if　the　conception　of　the　one　is　completely　identical　with

that　of　the　other。　But　if　it　is　a　phenomenon　in　space；　it　has　a

place　not　merely　in　the　understanding　（among　conceptions）；　but　also　in

sensuous　external　intuition　（in　space）；　and　in　this　case；　the　physical

locale　is　a　matter　of　indifference　in　regard　to　the　internal

determinations　of　things；　and　one　place；　B；　may　contain　a　thing

which　is　perfectly　similar　and　equal　to　another　in　a　place；　A；　just　as

well　as　if　the　two　things　were　in　every　respect　different　from　each

other。　Difference　of　place　without　any　other　conditions；　makes　the

plurality　and　distinction　of　objects　as　phenomena；　not　only　possible

in　itself；　but　even　necessary。　Consequently；　the　above　so…called　law

is　not　a　law　of　nature。　It　is　merely　an　analytical　rule　for　the

comparison　of　things　by　means　of　mere　conceptions。

　　2nd。　The　principle：　〃Realities　（as　simple　affirmations）　never

logically　contradict　each　other；〃　is　a　proposition　perfectly　true

respecting　the　relation　of　conceptions；　but；　whether　as　regards

nature；　or　things　in　themselves　（of　which　we　have　not　the　slightest

conception）；　is　without　any　the　least　meaning。　For　real　opposition；　in

which　A　…　B　is　=　0；　exists　everywhere；　an　opposition；　that　is；　in

which　one　reality　united　with　another　in　the　same　subject

annihilates　the　effects　of　the　other…　a　fact　which　is　constantly

brought　before　our　eyes　by　the　different　antagonistic　actions　and

operations　in　nature；　which；　nevertheless；　as　depending　on　real

forces；　must　be　called　realitates　phaenomena。　General　mechanics　can

even　present　us　with　the　empirical　condition　of　this　opposition　in

an　a　priori　rule；　as　it　directs　its　attention　to　the　opposition　in　the

direction　of　forces…　a　condition　of　which　the　transcendental

conception　of　reality　can　tell　us　nothing。　Although　M。　Leibnitz　did

not　announce　this　proposition　with　precisely　the　pomp　of　a　new

principle；　he　yet　employed　it　for　the　establishment　of　new

propositions；　and　his　followers　introduced　it　into　their

Leibnitzio…Wolfian　system　of　philosophy。　According　to　this

principle；　for　example；　all　evils　are　but　consequences　of　the

limited　nature　of　created　beings；　that　is；　negations；　because　these

are　the　only　opposite　of　reality。　（In　the　mere　conception　of　a　thing

in　general　this　is　really　the　case；　but　not　in　things　as　phenomena。）

In　like　manner；　the　upholders　of　this　system　deem　it　not　only

possible；　but　natural　also；　to　connect　and　unite　all　reality　in　one

being；　because　they　acknowledge　no　other　sort　of　opposition　than

that　of　contradiction　（by　which　the　conception　itself　of　a　thing　is

annihilated）；　and　find　themselves　unable　to　conceive　an　opposition

of　reciprocal　destruction；　so　to　speak；　in　which　one　real　cause

destroys　the　effect　of　another；　and　the　conditions　of　whose

representation　we　meet　with　only　in　sensibility。

　　3rd。　The　Leibnitzian　monadology　has　really　no　better　foundation　than

on　this　philosopher's　mode　of　falsely　representing　the　difference　of

the　internal　and　external　solely　in　relation　to　the　understanding。

Substances；　in　general；　must　have　something　inward；　which　is　therefore

free　from　external　relations；　consequently　from　that　of　composition

also。　The　simple…　that　which　can　be　represented　by　a　unit…　is

therefore　the　foundation　of　that　which　is　internal　in　things　in

themselves。　The　internal　state　of　substances　cannot　therefore

consist　in　place；　shape；　contact；　or　motion；　determinati