the critique of practical reason-第39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！


conception　of　a　relation　to　which　objective　reality　is　given　by　the　practical　law　（which　determines　a　priori　precisely　this　relation　of　the　understanding　to　the　will）。　When　once　this　is　done；　then　reality　is　given　to　the　conception　of　the　object　of　a　will　morally　determined　（the　conception　of　the　summum　bonum）；　and　with　it　to　the　conditions　of　its　possibility；　the　ideas　of　God；　freedom；　and　immortality；　but　always　only　relatively　to　the　practice　of　the　moral　law　（and　not　for　any　speculative　purpose）。

　　*Learning　is　properly　only　the　whole　content　of　the　historical　sciences。　Consequently　it　is　only　the　teacher　of　revealed　theology　that　can　be　called　a　learned　theologian。　If；　however；　we　choose　to　call　a　man　learned　who　is　in　possession　of　the　rational　sciences　（mathematics　and　philosophy）；　although　even　this　would　be　contrary　to　the　signification　of　the　word　（which　always　counts　as　learning　only　that　which　one　must　be　〃learned〃　and　which；　therefore；　he　cannot　discover　of　himself　by　reason）；　even　in　that　case　the　philosopher　would　make　too　poor　a　figure　with　his　knowledge　of　God　as　a　positive　science　to　let　himself　be　called　on　that　account　a　learned　man。

　　According　to　these　remarks　it　is　now　easy　to　find　the　answer　to　the　weighty　question　whether　the　notion　of　God　is　one　belonging　to　physics　（and　therefore　also　to　metaphysics；　which　contains　the　pure　a　priori　principles　of　the　former　in　their　universal　import）　or　to　morals。　If　we　have　recourse　to　God　as　the　Author　of　all　things；　in　order　to　explain　the　arrangements　of　nature　or　its　changes；　this　is　at　least　not　a　physical　explanation；　and　is　a　complete　confession　that　our　philosophy　has　come　to　an　end；　since　we　are　obliged　to　assume　something　of　which　in　itself　we　have　otherwise　no　conception；　in　order　to　be　able　to　frame　a　conception　of　the　possibility　of　what　we　see　before　our　eyes。　Metaphysics；　however；　cannot　enable　us　to　attain　by　certain　inference　from　the　knowledge　of　this　world　to　the　conception　of　God　and　to　the　proof　of　His　existence；　for　this　reason；　that　in　order　to　say　that　this　world　could　be　produced　only　by　a　God　（according　to　the　conception　implied　by　this　word）　we　should　know　this　world　as　the　most　perfect　whole　possible；　and　for　this　purpose　should　also　know　all　possible　worlds　（in　order　to　be　able　to　compare　them　with　this）；　in　other　words；　we　should　be　omniscient。　It　is　absolutely　impossible；　however；　to　know　the　existence　of　this　Being　from　mere　concepts；　because　every　existential　proposition；　that　is；　every　proposition　that　affirms　the　existence　of　a　being　of　which　I　frame　a　concept；　is　a　synthetic　proposition；　that　is；　one　by　which　I　go　beyond　that　conception　and　affirm　of　it　more　than　was　thought　in　the　conception　itself；　namely；　that　this　concept　in　the　understanding　has　an　object　corresponding　to　it　outside　the　understanding；　and　this　it　is　obviously　impossible　to　elicit　by　any　reasoning。　There　remains；　therefore；　only　one　single　process　possible　for　reason　to　attain　this　knowledge；　namely；　to　start　from　the　supreme　principle　of　its　pure　practical　use　（which　in　every　case　is　directed　simply　to　the　existence　of　something　as　a　consequence　of　reason）　and　thus　determine　its　object。　Then　its　inevitable　problem；　namely；　the　necessary　direction　of　the　will　to　the　summum　bonum；　discovers　to　us　not　only　the　necessity　of　assuming　such　a　First　Being　in　reference　to　the　possibility　of　this　good　in　the　world；　but；　what　is　most　remarkable；　something　which　reason　in　its　progress　on　the　path　of　physical　nature　altogether　failed　to　find；　namely；　an　accurately　defined　conception　of　this　First　Being。　As　we　can　know　only　a　small　part　of　this　world；　and　can　still　less　compare　it　with　all　possible　worlds；　we　may　indeed　from　its　order；　design；　and　greatness；　infer　a　wise；　good；　powerful；　etc。；　Author　of　it；　but　not　that　He　is　all…wise；　all…good；　all…powerful；　etc。　It　may　indeed　very　well　be　granted　that　we　should　be　justified　in　supplying　this　inevitable　defect　by　a　legitimate　and　reasonable　hypothesis；　namely；　that　when　wisdom；　goodness；　etc；　are　displayed　in　all　the　parts　that　offer　themselves　to　our　nearer　knowledge；　it　is　just　the　same　in　all　the　rest；　and　that　it　would　therefore　be　reasonable　to　ascribe　all　possible　perfections　to　the　Author　of　the　world；　but　these　are　not　strict　logical　inferences　in　which　we　can　pride　ourselves　on　our　insight；　but　only　permitted　conclusions　in　which　we　may　be　indulged　and　which　require　further　recommendation　before　we　can　make　use　of　them。　On　the　path　of　empirical　inquiry　then　（physics）；　the　conception　of　God　remains　always　a　conception　of　the　perfection　of　the　First　Being　not　accurately　enough　determined　to　be　held　adequate　to　the　conception　of　Deity。　（With　metaphysic　in　its　transcendental　part　nothing　whatever　can　be　accomplished。）　　　When　I　now　try　to　test　this　conception　by　reference　to　the　object　of　practical　reason；　I　find　that　the　moral　principle　admits　as　possible　only　the　conception　of　an　Author　of　the　world　possessed　of　the　highest　perfection。　He　must　be　omniscient；　in　order　to　know　my　conduct　up　to　the　inmost　root　of　my　mental　state　in　all　possible　cases　and　into　all　future　time；　omnipotent；　in　order　to　allot　to　it　its　fitting　consequences；　similarly　He　must　be　omnipresent；　eternal；　etc。　Thus　the　moral　law；　by　means　of　the　conception　of　the　summum　bonum　as　the　object　of　a　pure　practical　reason；　determines　the　concept　of　the　First　Being　as　the　Supreme　Being；　a　thing　which　the　physical　（and　in　its　higher　development　the　metaphysical）；　in　other　words；　the　whole　speculative　course　of　reason；　was　unable　to　effect。　The　conception　of　God；　then；　is　one　that　belongs　originally　not　to　physics；　i。e。；　to　speculative　reason；　but　to　morals。　The　same　may　be　said　of　the　other　conceptions　of　reason　of　which　we　have　treated　above　as　postulates　of　it　in　its　practical　use。　　　In　the　history　of　Grecian　philosophy　we　find　no　distinct　traces　of　a　pure　rational　theology　earlier　than　Anaxagoras；　but　this　is　not　because　the　older　philosophers　had　not　intelligence　or　penetration　enough　to　raise　themselves　to　it　by　the　path　of　speculation；　at　least　with　the　aid　of　a　thoroughly　reasonable　hypothesis。　What　could　have　been　easier；　what　more　natural；　than　the　thought　which　of　itself　occurs　to　everyone；　to　assume　instead　of　several　causes　of　the　world；　instead　of　an　indeterminate　degree　of　perfection；　a　single　rational　cause　having　all　perfection？　But　the　evils　in　the　world　seemed　to　them　to　be　much　too　serious　objections　to　allow　them　to　feel　themselves　justified　in　such　a　hypothesis。　They　showed　intelligence　and　penetration　then　in　this　very　point；　that　they　did　not　allow　themselves　to　adopt　it；　but　on　the　contrary　looked　about　amongst　natural　causes　to　see　if　they　could　not　find　in　them　the　qualities　and　power　required　for　a　First　Being。　But　when　this　acute　people　had　advanced　so　far　in　their　investigations　of　nature　as　to　treat　even　moral　questions　philosophically；　on　which　other　nations　had　never　done　anything　but　talk；　then　first　they　found　a　new　and　practical　want；　which　did　not　fail　to　give　definiteness　to　their　conception　of　the　First　Being：　and　in　this　the　speculative　reason　played　the　part　of　spectator；　or　at　best　had　the　merit　of　embellishing　a　conception　that　had　not　grown　on　its　own　ground；　and　of　applying　a　series　of　confirmations　from　the　study　of　nature　now　brought　forward　for　the　first　time；　not　indeed　to　strengthen　the　authority　of　this　conception　（which　was　already　established）；　but　rather　to　make　a　show　with　a　supposed　discovery　of　theoretical　reason。

　　From　these　remarks；　the　reader　of　the　Critique　of　Pure　Speculative　Reason　will　be　thoroughly　convinced　how　highly　necessary　that　laborious　deduction　of　the　categories　was；　and　how　fruitful　for　theology　and　morals。　For　if；　on　the　one　hand；　we　place　them　in　pure　understanding；　it　is　by　this　deduction　alone　that　we　can　be　prevented　from　regarding　them；　with　Plato；　as　innate；　and　founding　on　them　extravagant　pretensions　to　theories　of　the　supersensible；　to　which　we　can　see　no　end；　and　by　which　we　should　make　theology　a　magic　lantern　of　chimeras；　on　the　other　hand；　if　we　regard　them　as　acquired；　this　deduction　saves　us　from　restricting；　with　Epicurus；　all　and　every　use　of　them；　even　for　pra