the critique of pure reason-第84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！



the　mode　of　intuiting　it　is　sensuous　or　intellectual。　I　therefore　do

not　represent　myself　in　thought　either　as　I　am；　or　as　I　appear　to

myself；　I　merely　cogitate　myself　as　an　object　in　general；　of　the

mode　of　intuiting　which　I　make　abstraction。　When　I　represent　myself　as

the　subject　of　thought；　or　as　the　ground　of　thought；　these　modes　of

representation　are　not　related　to　the　categories　of　substance　or　of

cause；　for　these　are　functions　of　thought　applicable　only　to　our

sensuous　intuition。　The　application　of　these　categories　to　the　Ego

would；　however；　be　necessary；　if　I　wished　to　make　myself　an　object

of　knowledge。　But　I　wish　to　be　conscious　of　myself　only　as　thinking；

in　what　mode　my　Self　is　given　in　intuition；　I　do　not　consider；　and

it　may　be　that　I；　who　think；　am　a　phenomenon…　although　not　in　so　far

as　I　am　a　thinking　being；　but　in　the　consciousness　of　myself　in　mere

thought　I　am　a　being；　though　this　consciousness　does　not　present　to　me

any　property　of　this　being　as　material　for　thought。

　　But　the　proposition；　〃I　think；〃　in　so　far　as　it　declares；　〃I　exist

thinking；〃　is　not　the　mere　representation　of　a　logical　function。　It

determines　the　subject　（which　is　in　this　case　an　object　also）　in

relation　to　existence；　and　it　cannot　be　given　without　the　aid　of　the

internal　sense；　whose　intuition　presents　to　us　an　object；　not　as　a

thing　in　itself；　but　always　as　a　phenomenon。　In　this　proposition　there

is　therefore　something　more　to　be　found　than　the　mere　spontaneity　of

thought；　there　is　also　the　receptivity　of　intuition；　that　is；　my

thought　of　myself　applied　to　the　empirical　intuition　of　myself。　Now；

in　this　intuition　the　thinking　self　must　seek　the　conditions　of　the

employment　of　its　logical　functions　as　categories　of　substance；　cause；

and　so　forth；　not　merely　for　the　purpose　of　distinguishing　itself　as

an　object　in　itself　by　means　of　the　representation　〃I；〃　but　also　for

the　purpose　of　determining　the　mode　of　its　existence；　that　is；　of

cognizing　itself　as　noumenon。　But　this　is　impossible；　for　the　internal

empirical　intuition　is　sensuous；　and　presents　us　with　nothing　but

phenomenal　data；　which　do　not　assist　the　object　of　pure

consciousness　in　its　attempt　to　cognize　itself　as　a　separate

existence；　but　are　useful　only　as　contributions　to　experience。

　　But；　let　it　be　granted　that　we　could　discover；　not　in　experience；

but　in　certain　firmly…established　a　priori　laws　of　the　use　of　pure

reason…　laws　relating　to　our　existence；　authority　to　consider

ourselves　as　legislating　a　priori　in　relation　to　our　own　existence　and

as　determining　this　existence；　we　should；　on　this　supposition；　find

ourselves　possessed　of　a　spontaneity；　by　which　our　actual　existence

would　be　determinable；　without　the　aid　of　the　conditions　of

empirical　intuition。　We　should　also　become　aware　that　in　the

consciousness　of　our　existence　there　was　an　a　priori　content；　which

would　serve　to　determine　our　own　existence…　an　existence　only

sensuously　determinable…　relatively；　however；　to　a　certain　internal

faculty　in　relation　to　an　intelligible　world。

　　But　this　would　not　give　the　least　help　to　the　attempts　of　rational

psychology。　For　this　wonderful　faculty；　which　the　consciousness　of　the

moral　law　in　me　reveals；　would　present　me　with　a　principle　of　the

determination　of　my　own　existence　which　is　purely　intellectual…　but　by

what　predicates？　By　none　other　than　those　which　are　given　in

sensuous　intuition。　Thus　I　should　find　myself　in　the　same　position

in　rational　psychology　which　I　formerly　occupied；　that　is　to　say；　I

should　find　myself　still　in　need　of　sensuous　intuitions；　in　order　to

give　significance　to　my　conceptions　of　substance　and　cause；　by　means

of　which　alone　I　can　possess　a　knowledge　of　myself：　but　these

intuitions　can　never　raise　me　above　the　sphere　of　experience。　I　should

be　justified；　however；　in　applying　these　conceptions；　in　regard　to

their　practical　use；　which　is　always　directed　to　objects　of

experience…　in　conformity　with　their　analogical　significance　when

employed　theoretically…　to　freedom　and　its　subject。　At　the　same

time；　I　should　understand　by　them　merely　the　logical　functions　of

subject　and　predicate；　of　principle　and　consequence；　in　conformity

with　which　all　actions　are　so　determined；　that　they　are　capable　of

being　explained　along　with　the　laws　of　nature；　conformably　to　the

categories　of　substance　and　cause；　although　they　originate　from　a　very

different　principle。　We　have　made　these　observations　for　the　purpose

of　guarding　against　misunderstanding；　to　which　the　doctrine　of　our

intuition　of　self　as　a　phenomenon　is　exposed。　We　shall　have　occasion

to　perceive　their　utility　in　the　sequel。

　　　　　　　　　　　　CHAPTER　II。　The　Antinomy　of　Pure　Reason。



　　We　showed　in　the　introduction　to　this　part　of　our　work；　that　all

transcendental　illusion　of　pure　reason　arose　from　dialectical

arguments；　the　schema　of　which　logic　gives　us　in　its　three　formal

species　of　syllogisms…　just　as　the　categories　find　their　logical

schema　in　the　four　functions　of　all　judgements。　The　first　kind　of

these　sophistical　arguments　related　to　the　unconditioned　unity　of

the　subjective　conditions　of　all　representations　in　general　（of　the

subject　or　soul）；　in　correspondence　with　the　categorical　syllogisms；

the　major　of　which；　as　the　principle；　enounces　the　relation　of　a

predicate　to　a　subject。　The　second　kind　of　dialectical　argument　will

therefore　be　concerned；　following　the　analogy　with　hypothetical

syllogisms；　with　the　unconditioned　unity　of　the　objective　conditions

in　the　phenomenon；　and；　in　this　way；　the　theme　of　the　third　kind　to　be

treated　of　in　the　following　chapter　will　be　the　unconditioned　unity　of

the　objective　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　objects　in　general。

　　But　it　is　worthy　of　remark　that　the　transcendental　paralogism

produced　in　the　mind　only　a　one…third　illusion；　in　regard　to　the

idea　of　the　subject　of　our　thought；　and　the　conceptions　of　reason　gave

no　ground　to　maintain　the　contrary　proposition。　The　advantage　is

completely　on　the　side　of　Pneumatism；　although　this　theory　itself

passes　into　naught；　in　the　crucible　of　pure　reason。

　　Very　different　is　the　case　when　we　apply　reason　to　the　objective

synthesis　of　phenomena。　Here；　certainly；　reason　establishes；　with　much

plausibility；　its　principle　of　unconditioned　unity；　but　it　very　soon

falls　into　such　contradictions　that　it　is　compelled；　in　relation　to

cosmology；　to　renounce　its　pretensions。

　　For　here　a　new　phenomenon　of　human　reason　meets　us…　a　perfectly

natural　antithetic；　which　does　not　require　to　be　sought　for　by

subtle　sophistry；　but　into　which　reason　of　itself　unavoidably　falls。

It　is　thereby　preserved；　to　be　sure；　from　the　slumber　of　a　fancied

conviction…　which　a　merely　one…sided　illusion　produces；　but　it　is　at

the　same　time　compelled；　either；　on　the　one　hand；　to　abandon　itself　to

a　despairing　scepticism；　or；　on　the　other；　to　assume　a　dogmatical

confidence　and　obstinate　persistence　in　certain　assertions；　without

granting　a　fair　hearing　to　the　other　side　of　the　question。　Either　is

the　death　of　a　sound　philosophy；　although　the　former　might　perhaps

deserve　the　title　of　the　euthanasia　of　pure　reason。

　　Before　entering　this　region　of　discord　and　confusion；　which　the

conflict　of　the　laws　of　pure　reason　（antinomy）　produces；　we　shall

present　the　reader　with　some　considerations；　in　explanation　and

justification　of　the　method　we　intend　to　follow　in　our　treatment　of

this　subject。　I　term　all　transcendental　ideas；　in　so　far　as　they

relate　to　the　absolute　totality　in　the　synthesis　of　phenomena；

cosmical　conceptions；　partly　on　account　of　this　unconditioned

totality；　on　which　the　conception　of　the　world…whole　is　based…　a

conception；　which　is　itself　an　idea…　partly　because　they　relate　solely

to　the　synthesis　of　phenomena…　the　empirical　synthesis；　while；　on

the　other　hand；　the　absolute　totality　in　the　synthesis　of　the

conditions　of　all　possible　things　gives　rise　to　an　ideal　of　pure

reason；　which　is　quite　distinct