the critique of pure reason-第69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！



mode　in　which　the　manifold　determines　to　each　of　its　parts　its

place；　that　is；　the　form　of　sensibility　（space）；　and　yet　this　mode

antecedes　all　empirical　causality。



　　*If　any　one　wishes　here　to　have　recourse　to　the　usual　subterfuge；

and　to　say；　that　at　least　realitates　noumena　cannot　be　in　opposition

to　each　other；　it　will　be　requisite　for　him　to　adduce　an　example　of

this　pure　and　non…sensuous　reality；　that　it　may　be　understood

whether　the　notion　represents　something　or　nothing。　But　an　example

cannot　be　found　except　in　experience；　which　never　presents　to　us

anything　more　than　phenomena；　and　thus　the　proposition　means　nothing

more　than　that　the　conception　which　contains　only　affirmatives　does

not　contain　anything　negative…　a　proposition　nobody　ever　doubted。



　　If　by　intelligible　objects　we　understand　things　which　can　be　thought

by　means　of　the　pure　categories；　without　the　need　of　the　schemata　of

sensibility；　such　objects　are　impossible。　For　the　condition　of　the

objective　use　of　all　our　conceptions　of　understanding　is　the　mode　of

our　sensuous　intuition；　whereby　objects　are　given；　and；　if　we　make

abstraction　of　the　latter；　the　former　can　have　no　relation　to　an

object。　And　even　if　we　should　suppose　a　different　kind　of　intuition

from　our　own；　still　our　functions　of　thought　would　have　no　use　or

signification　in　respect　thereof。　But　if　we　understand　by　the　term；

objects　of　a　non…sensuous　intuition；　in　respect　of　which　our

categories　are　not　valid；　and　of　which　we　can　accordingly　have　no

knowledge　（neither　intuition　nor　conception）；　in　this　merely

negative　sense　noumena　must　be　admitted。　For　this　is　no　more　than

saying　that　our　mode　of　intuition　is　not　applicable　to　all　things；　but

only　to　objects　of　our　senses；　that　consequently　its　objective

validity　is　limited；　and　that　room　is　therefore　left　for　another

kind　of　intuition；　and　thus　also　for　things　that　may　be　objects　of　it。

But　in　this　sense　the　conception　of　a　noumenon　is　problematical；

that　is　to　say；　it　is　the　notion　of　that　it　that　it　is　possible；　nor

that　it　is　impossible；　inasmuch　as　we　do　not　know　of　any　mode　of

intuition　besides　the　sensuous；　or　of　any　other　sort　of　conceptions

than　the　categories…　a　mode　of　intuition　and　a　kind　of　conception

neither　of　which　is　applicable　to　a　non…sensuous　object。　We　are　on

this　account　incompetent　to　extend　the　sphere　of　our　objects　of

thought　beyond　the　conditions　of　our　sensibility；　and　to　assume　the

existence　of　objects　of　pure　thought；　that　is；　of　noumena；　inasmuch　as

these　have　no　true　positive　signification。　For　it　must　be　confessed　of

the　categories　that　they　are　not　of　themselves　sufficient　for　the

cognition　of　things　in　themselves　and；　without　the　data　of

sensibility；　are　mere　subjective　forms　of　the　unity　of　the

understanding。　Thought　is　certainly　not　a　product　of　the　senses；　and

in　so　far　is　not　limited　by　them；　but　it　does　not　therefore　follow

that　it　may　be　employed　purely　and　without　the　intervention　of

sensibility；　for　it　would　then　be　without　reference　to　an　object。

And　we　cannot　call　a　noumenon　an　object　of　pure　thought；　for　the

representation　thereof　is　but　the　problematical　conception　of　an

object　for　a　perfectly　different　intuition　and　a　perfectly　different

understanding　from　ours；　both　of　which　are　consequently　themselves

problematical。　The　conception　of　a　noumenon　is　therefore　not　the

conception　of　an　object；　but　merely　a　problematical　conception

inseparably　connected　with　the　limitation　of　our　sensibility。　That

is　to　say；　this　conception　contains　the　answer　to　the　question：　〃Are

there　objects　quite　unconnected　with；　and　independent　of；　our

intuition？〃…　a　question　to　which　only　an　indeterminate　answer　can　be

given。　That　answer　is：　〃Inasmuch　as　sensuous　intuition　does　not

apply　to　all　things　without　distinction；　there　remains　room　for

other　and　different　objects。〃　The　existence　of　these　problematical

objects　is　therefore　not　absolutely　denied；　in　the　absence　of　a

determinate　conception　of　them；　but；　as　no　category　is　valid　in

respect　of　them；　neither　must　they　be　admitted　as　objects　for　our

understanding。

　　Understanding　accordingly　limits　sensibility；　without　at　the　same

time　enlarging　its　own　field。　While；　moreover；　it　forbids

sensibility　to　apply　its　forms　and　modes　to　things　in　themselves　and

restricts　it　to　the　sphere　of　phenomena；　it　cogitates　an　object　in

itself；　only；　however；　as　a　transcendental　object；　which　is　the

cause　of　a　phenomenon　（consequently　not　itself　a　phenomenon）；　and

which　cannot　be　thought　either　as　a　quantity　or　as　reality；　or　as

substance　（because　these　conceptions　always　require　sensuous　forms

in　which　to　determine　an　object）…　an　object；　therefore；　of　which　we

are　quite　unable　to　say　whether　it　can　be　met　with　in　ourselves　or　out

of　us；　whether　it　would　be　annihilated　together　with　sensibility；

or；　if　this　were　taken　away；　would　continue　to　exist。　If　we　wish　to

call　this　object　a　noumenon；　because　the　representation　of　it　is

non…sensuous；　we　are　at　liberty　to　do　so。　But　as　we　can　apply　to　it

none　of　the　conceptions　of　our　understanding；　the　representation　is

for　us　quite　void；　and　is　available　only　for　the　indication　of　the

limits　of　our　sensuous　intuition；　thereby　leaving　at　the　same　time

an　empty　space；　which　we　are　competent　to　fill　by　the　aid　neither　of

possible　experience；　nor　of　the　pure　understanding。

　　The　critique　of　the　pure　understanding；　accordingly；　does　not　permit

us　to　create　for　ourselves　a　new　field　of　objects　beyond　those　which

are　presented　to　us　as　phenomena；　and　to　stray　into　intelligible

worlds；　nay；　it　does　not　even　allow　us　to　endeavour　to　form　so　much　as

a　conception　of　them。　The　specious　error　which　leads　to　this…　and

which　is　a　perfectly　excusable　one…　lies　in　the　fact　that　the

employment　of　the　understanding；　contrary　to　its　proper　purpose　and

destination；　is　made　transcendental；　and　objects；　that　is；　possible

intuitions；　are　made　to　regulate　themselves　according　to

conceptions；　instead　of　the　conceptions　arranging　themselves　according

to　the　intuitions；　on　which　alone　their　own　objective　validity

rests。　Now　the　reason　of　this　again　is　that　apperception；　and　with

it　thought；　antecedes　all　possible　determinate　arrangement　of

representations。　Accordingly　we　think　something　in　general　and

determine　it　on　the　one　hand　sensuously；　but；　on　the　other；

distinguish　the　general　and　in　abstracto　represented　object　from

this　particular　mode　of　intuiting　it。　In　this　case　there　remains　a

mode　of　determining　the　object　by　mere　thought；　which　is　really　but

a　logical　form　without　content；　which；　however；　seems　to　us　to　be　a

mode　of　the　existence　of　the　object　in　itself　（noumenon）；　without

regard　to　intuition　which　is　limited　to　our　senses。



　　Before　ending　this　transcendental　analytic；　we　must　make　an

addition；　which；　although　in　itself　of　no　particular　importance；　seems

to　be　necessary　to　the　completeness　of　the　system。　The　highest

conception；　with　which　a　transcendental　philosophy　commonly　begins；　is

the　division　into　possible　and　impossible。　But　as　all　division

presupposes　a　divided　conception；　a　still　higher　one　must　exist；　and

this　is　the　conception　of　an　object　in　general…　problematically

understood　and　without　its　being　decided　whether　it　is　something　or

nothing。　As　the　categories　are　the　only　conceptions　which　apply　to

objects　in　general；　the　distinguishing　of　an　object；　whether　it　is

something　or　nothing；　must　proceed　according　to　the　order　and

direction　of　the　categories。

　　1。　To　the　categories　of　quantity；　that　is；　the　conceptions　of　all；

many；　and　one；　the　conception　which　annihilates　all；　that　is；　the

conception　of　none；　is　opposed。　And　thus　the　object　of　a　conception；

to　which　no　intuition　can　be　found　to　correspond；　is　=　nothing。　That

is；　it　is　a　conception　without　an　object　（ens　rationis）；　like　noumena；

which　cannot　be　considered　possible　in　the　sphere　of　reality；　though

they　must　not　therefore　be　held　to