the critique of pure reason-第98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！



transcendental　problems　of　pure　reason。

　　Although；　therefore；　the　solution　of　these　problems　is

unattainable　through　experience；　we　must　not　permit　ourselves　to　say

that　it　is　uncertain　how　the　object　of　our　inquiries　is　constituted。

For　the　object　is　in　our　own　mind　and　cannot　be　discovered　in

experience；　and　we　have　only　to　take　care　that　our　thoughts　are

consistent　with　each　other；　and　to　avoid　falling　into　the　amphiboly　of

regarding　our　idea　as　a　representation　of　an　object　empirically　given；

and　therefore　to　be　cognized　according　to　the　laws　of　experience。　A

dogmatical　solution　is　therefore　not　only　unsatisfactory　but

impossible。　The　critical　solution；　which　may　be　a　perfectly　certain

one；　does　not　consider　the　question　objectively；　but　proceeds　by

inquiring　into　the　basis　of　the　cognition　upon　which　the　question

rests。



　　　　　SECTION　V。　Sceptical　Exposition　of　the　Cosmological　Problems

　　　　　　　　　　　presented　in　the　four　Transcendental　Ideas。



　　We　should　be　quite　willing　to　desist　from　the　demand　of　a　dogmatical

answer　to　our　questions；　if　we　understood　beforehand　that；　be　the

answer　what　it　may；　it　would　only　serve　to　increase　our　ignorance；

to　throw　us　from　one　incomprehensibility　into　another；　from　one

obscurity　into　another　still　greater；　and　perhaps　lead　us　into

irreconcilable　contradictions。　If　a　dogmatical　affirmative　or　negative

answer　is　demanded；　is　it　at　all　prudent　to　set　aside　the　probable

grounds　of　a　solution　which　lie　before　us　and　to　take　into

consideration　what　advantage　we　shall　gain；　if　the　answer　is　to　favour

the　one　side　or　the　other？　If　it　happens　that　in　both　cases　the　answer

is　mere　nonsense；　we　have　in　this　an　irresistible　summons　to　institute

a　critical　investigation　of　the　question；　for　the　purpose　of

discovering　whether　it　is　based　on　a　groundless　presupposition　and

relates　to　an　idea；　the　falsity　of　which　would　be　more　easily

exposed　in　its　application　and　consequences　than　in　the　mere

representation　of　its　content。　This　is　the　great　utility　of　the

sceptical　mode　of　treating　the　questions　addressed　by　pure　reason　to

itself。　By　this　method　we　easily　rid　ourselves　of　the　confusions　of

dogmatism；　and　establish　in　its　place　a　temperate　criticism；　which；　as

a　genuine　cathartic；　will　successfully　remove　the　presumptuous　notions

of　philosophy　and　their　consequence…　the　vain　pretension　to

universal　science。

　　If；　then；　I　could　understand　the　nature　of　a　cosmological　idea　and

perceive；　before　I　entered　on　the　discussion　of　the　subject　at　all；

that；　whatever　side　of　the　question　regarding　the　unconditioned　of　the

regressive　synthesis　of　phenomena　it　favoured…　it　must　either　be　too

great　or　too　small　for　every　conception　of　the　understanding…　I

would　be　able　to　comprehend　how　the　idea；　which　relates　to　an　object

of　experience…　an　experience　which　must　be　adequate　to　and　in

accordance　with　a　possible　conception　of　the　understanding…　must　be

completely　void　and　without　significance；　inasmuch　as　its　object　is

inadequate；　consider　it　as　we　may。　And　this　is　actually　the　case

with　all　cosmological　conceptions；　which；　for　the　reason　above

mentioned；　involve　reason；　so　long　as　it　remains　attached　to　them；

in　an　unavoidable　antinomy。　For　suppose：

　　First；　that　the　world　has　no　beginning…　in　this　case　it　is　too　large

for　our　conception；　for　this　conception；　which　consists　in　a

successive　regress；　cannot　overtake　the　whole　eternity　that　has

elapsed。　Grant　that　it　has　a　beginning；　it　is　then　too　small　for　the

conception　of　the　understanding。　For；　as　a　beginning　presupposes　a

time　preceding；　it　cannot　be　unconditioned；　and　the　law　of　the

empirical　employment　of　the　understanding　imposes　the　necessity　of

looking　for　a　higher　condition　of　time；　and　the　world　is；　therefore；

evidently　too　small　for　this　law。

　　The　same　is　the　case　with　the　double　answer　to　the　question

regarding　the　extent；　in　space；　of　the　world。　For；　if　it　is　infinite

and　unlimited；　it　must　be　too　large　for　every　possible　empirical

conception。　If　it　is　finite　and　limited；　we　have　a　right　to　ask：　〃What

determines　these　limits？〃　Void　space　is　not　a　self…subsistent

correlate　of　things；　and　cannot　be　a　final　condition…　and　still　less

an　empirical　condition；　forming　a　part　of　a　possible　experience。　For

how　can　we　have　any　experience　or　perception　of　an　absolute　void？

But　the　absolute　totality　of　the　empirical　synthesis　requires　that　the

unconditioned　be　an　empirical　conception。　Consequently；　a　finite　world

is　too　small　for　our　conception。

　　Secondly；　if　every　phenomenon　（matter）　in　space　consists　of　an

infinite　number　of　parts；　the　regress　of　the　division　is　always　too

great　for　our　conception；　and　if　the　division　of　space　must　cease　with

some　member　of　the　division　（the　simple）；　it　is　too　small　for　the　idea

of　the　unconditioned。　For　the　member　at　which　we　have　discontinued　our

division　still　admits　a　regress　to　many　more　parts　contained　in　the

object。

　　Thirdly；　suppose　that　every　event　in　the　world　happens　in　accordance

with　the　laws　of　nature；　the　causality　of　a　cause　must　itself　be　an

event　and　necessitates　a　regress　to　a　still　higher　cause；　and

consequently　the　unceasing　prolongation　of　the　series　of　conditions

a　parte　priori。　Operative　nature　is　therefore　too　large　for　every

conception　we　can　form　in　the　synthesis　of　cosmical　events。

　　If　we　admit　the　existence　of　spontaneously　produced　events；　that　is；

of　free　agency；　we　are　driven；　in　our　search　for　sufficient　reasons；

on　an　unavoidable　law　of　nature　and　are　compelled　to　appeal　to　the

empirical　law　of　causality；　and　we　find　that　any　such　totality　of

connection　in　our　synthesis　is　too　small　for　our　necessary　empirical

conception。

　　Fourthly；　if　we　assume　the　existence　of　an　absolutely　necessary

being…　whether　it　be　the　world　or　something　in　the　world；　or　the　cause

of　the　world…　we　must　place　it　in　a　time　at　an　infinite　distance

from　any　given　moment；　for；　otherwise；　it　must　be　dependent　on　some

other　and　higher　existence。　Such　an　existence　is；　in　this　case；　too

large　for　our　empirical　conception；　and　unattainable　by　the

continued　regress　of　any　synthesis。

　　But　if　we　believe　that　everything　in　the　world…　be　it　condition　or

conditioned…　is　contingent；　every　given　existence　is　too　small　for　our

conception。　For　in　this　case　we　are　compelled　to　seek　for　some　other

existence　upon　which　the　former　depends。

　　We　have　said　that　in　all　these　cases　the　cosmological　idea　is　either

too　great　or　too　small　for　the　empirical　regress　in　a　synthesis；　and

consequently　for　every　possible　conception　of　the　understanding。　Why

did　we　not　express　ourselves　in　a　manner　exactly　the　reverse　of　this

and；　instead　of　accusing　the　cosmological　idea　of　over　stepping　or

of　falling　short　of　its　true　aim；　possible　experience；　say　that；　in

the　first　case；　the　empirical　conception　is　always　too　small　for　the

idea；　and　in　the　second　too　great；　and　thus　attach　the　blame　of

these　contradictions　to　the　empirical　regress？　The　reason　is　this。

Possible　experience　can　alone　give　reality　to　our　conceptions；　without

it　a　conception　is　merely　an　idea；　without　truth　or　relation　to　an

object。　Hence　a　possible　empirical　conception　must　be　the　standard

by　which　we　are　to　judge　whether　an　idea　is　anything　more　than　an　idea

and　fiction　of　thought；　or　whether　it　relates　to　an　object　in　the

world。　If　we　say　of　a　thing　that　in　relation　to　some　other　thing　it　is

too　large　or　too　small；　the　former　is　considered　as　existing　for　the

sake　of　the　latter；　and　requiring　to　be　adapted　to　it。　Among　the

trivial　subjects　of　discussion　in　the　old　schools　of　dialectics　was

this　question：　〃If　a　ball　cannot　pass　through　a　hole；　shall　we　say

that　the　ball　is　too　large　or　the　hole　too　small？〃　In　this　case　it

is　indifferent　what　expression　we　employ；　for　we　do　not　know　which

exists　for　the　sake　of　the　other。　On　the　other　hand；　we　cannot　say：

〃The　man　is　too　long　for　his　coat〃；　but：　〃The　coat　is　too　short　for