the+critique+of+pure+reason_纯粹理性批判-第39部分

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！


although　phenomena　are　not　things　in　themselves；　and　are
nevertheless　the　only　thing　given　to　us　to　be　cognized；　it　is　my
duty　to　show　what　sort　of　connection　in　time　belongs　to　the　manifold
in　phenomena　themselves；　while　the　representation　of　this　manifold
in　apprehension　is　always　successive。　For　example；　the　apprehension　of
the　manifold　in　the　phenomenon　of　a　house　which　stands　before　me；　is
successive。　Now　es　the　question　whether　the　manifold　of　this
house　is　in　itself　successive…　which　no　one　will　be　at　all　willing
to　grant。　But；　so　soon　as　I　raise　my　conception　of　an　object　to　the
transcendental　signification　thereof；　I　find　that　the　house　is　not　a
thing　in　itself；　but　only　a　phenomenon；　that　is；　a　representation；　the
transcendental　object　of　which　remains　utterly　unknown。　What　then　am　I
to　understand　by　the　question：　〃How　can　the　manifold　be　connected　in
the　phenomenon　itself…　not　considered　as　a　thing　in　itself；　but　merely
as　a　phenomenon？〃　Here　that　which　lies　in　my　successive　apprehension
is　regarded　as　representation；　whilst　the　phenomenon　which　is　given
me；　notwithstanding　that　it　is　nothing　more　than　a　plex　of　these
representations；　is　regarded　as　the　object　thereof；　with　which　my
conception；　drawn　from　the　representations　of　apprehension；　must
harmonize。　It　is　very　soon　seen　that；　as　accordance　of　the　cognition
with　its　object　constitutes　truth；　the　question　now　before　us　can　only
relate　to　the　formal　conditions　of　empirical　truth；　and　that　the
phenomenon；　in　opposition　to　the　representations　of　apprehension；
can　only　be　distinguished　therefrom　as　the　object　of　them；　if　it　is
subject　to　a　rule　which　distinguishes　it　from　every　other
apprehension；　and　which　renders　necessary　a　mode　of　connection　of
the　manifold。　That　in　the　phenomenon　which　contains　the　condition　of
this　necessary　rule　of　apprehension；　is　the　object。
　　Let　us　now　proceed　to　our　task。　That　something　happens；　that　is　to
say；　that　something　or　some　state　exists　which　before　was　not；
cannot　be　empirically　perceived；　unless　a　phenomenon　precedes；　which
does　not　contain　in　itself　this　state。　For　a　reality　which　should
follow　upon　a　void　time；　in　other　words；　a　beginning；　which　no　state
of　things　precedes；　can　just　as　little　be　apprehended　as　the　void　time
itself。　Every　apprehension　of　an　event　is　therefore　a　perception　which
follows　upon　another　perception。　But　as　this　is　the　case　with　all
synthesis　of　apprehension；　as　I　have　shown　above　in　the　example　of　a
house；　my　apprehension　of　an　event　is　not　yet　sufficiently
distinguished　from　other　apprehensions。　But　I　remark　also　that　if　in　a
phenomenon　which　contains　an　occurrence；　I　call　the　antecedent　state
of　my　perception；　A；　and　the　following　state；　B；　the　perception　B
can　only　follow　A　in　apprehension；　and　the　perception　A　cannot
follow　B；　but　only　precede　it。　For　example；　I　see　a　ship　float　down
the　stream　of　a　river。　My　perception　of　its　place　lower　down　follows
upon　my　perception　of　its　place　higher　up　the　course　of　the　river；　and
it　is　impossible　that；　in　the　apprehension　of　this　phenomenon；　the
vessel　should　be　perceived　first　below　and　afterwards　higher　up　the
stream。　Here；　therefore；　the　order　in　the　sequence　of　perceptions　in
apprehension　is　determined；　and　by　this　order　apprehension　is
regulated。　In　the　former　example；　my　perceptions　in　the　apprehension
of　a　house　might　begin　at　the　roof　and　end　at　the　foundation；　or
vice　versa；　or　I　might　apprehend　the　manifold　in　this　empirical
intuition；　by　going　from　left　to　right；　and　from　right　to　left。
Accordingly；　in　the　series　of　these　perceptions；　there　was　no
determined　order；　which　necessitated　my　beginning　at　a　certain
point；　in　order　empirically　to　connect　the　manifold。　But　this　rule
is　always　to　be　met　with　in　the　perception　of　that　which　happens；
and　it　makes　the　order　of　the　successive　perceptions　in　the
apprehension　of　such　a　phenomenon　necessary。
　　I　must；　therefore；　in　the　present　case；　deduce　the　subjective
sequence　of　apprehension　from　the　objective　sequence　of　phenomena；　for
otherwise　the　former　is　quite　undetermined；　and　one　phenomenon　is
not　distinguishable　from　another。　The　former　alone　proves　nothing　as
to　the　connection　of　the　manifold　in　an　object；　for　it　is　quite
arbitrary。　The　latter　must　consist　in　the　order　of　the　manifold　in　a
phenomenon；　according　to　which　order　the　apprehension　of　one　thing
（that　which　happens）　follows　that　of　another　thing　（which　precedes）；
in　conformity　with　a　rule。　In　this　way　alone　can　I　be　authorized　to
say　of　the　phenomenon　itself；　and　not　merely　of　my　own　apprehension；
that　a　certain　order　or　sequence　is　to　be　found　therein。　That　is；　in
other　words；　I　cannot　arrange　my　apprehension　otherwise　than　in　this
order。
　　In　conformity　with　this　rule；　then；　it　is　necessary　that　in　that
which　antecedes　an　event　there　be　found　the　condition　of　a　rule；
according　to　which　in　this　event　follows　always　and　necessarily；　but　I
cannot　reverse　this　and　go　back　from　the　event；　and　determine　（by
apprehension）　that　which　antecedes　it。　For　no　phenomenon　goes　back
from　the　succeeding　point　of　time　to　the　preceding　point；　although
it　does　certainly　relate　to　a　preceding　point　of　time；　from　a　given
time；　on　the　other　hand；　there　is　always　a　necessary　progression　to
the　determined　succeeding　time。　Therefore；　because　there　certainly
is　something　that　follows；　I　must　of　necessity　connect　it　with
something　else；　which　antecedes；　and　upon　which　it　follows；　in
conformity　with　a　rule；　that　is　necessarily；　so　that　the　event；　as
conditioned；　affords　certain　indication　of　a　condition；　and　this
condition　determines　the　event。
　　Let　us　suppose　that　nothing　precedes　an　event；　upon　which　this　event
must　follow　in　conformity　with　a　rule。　All　sequence　of　perception
would　then　exist　only　in　apprehension；　that　is　to　say；　would　be　merely
subjective；　and　it　could　not　thereby　be　objectively　determined　what
thing　ought　to　precede；　and　what　ought　to　follow　in　perception。　In
such　a　case；　we　should　have　nothing　but　a　play　of　representations；
which　would　possess　no　application　to　any　object。　That　is　to　say；　it
would　not　be　possible　through　perception　to　distinguish　one　phenomenon
from　another；　as　regards　relations　of　time；　because　the　succession
in　the　act　of　apprehension　would　always　be　of　the　same　sort；　and
therefore　there　would　be　nothing　in　the　phenomenon　to　determine　the
succession；　and　to　render　a　certain　sequence　objectively　necessary。
And；　in　this　case；　I　cannot　say　that　two　states　in　a　phenomenon　follow
one　upon　the　other；　but　only　that　one　apprehension　follows　upon
another。　But　this　is　merely　subjective；　and　does　not　determine　an
object；　and　consequently　cannot　be　held　to　be　cognition　of　an
object…　not　even　in　the　phenomenal　world。
　　Accordingly；　when　we　know　in　experience　that　something　happens；　we
always　presuppose　that　something　precedes；　whereupon　it　follows　in
conformity　with　a　rule。　For　otherwise　I　could　not　say　of　the　object
that　it　follows；　because　the　mere　succession　in　my　apprehension；　if　it
be　not　determined　by　a　rule　in　relation　to　something　preceding；　does
not　authorize　succession　in　the　object。　Only；　therefore；　in
reference　to　a　rule；　according　to　which　phenomena　are　determined　in
their　sequence；　that　is；　as　they　happen；　by　the　preceding　state；　can　I
make　my　subjective　synthesis　（of　apprehension）　objective；　and　it　is
only　under　this　presupposition　that　even　the　experience　of　an　event　is
possible。
　　No　doubt　it　appears　as　if　this　were　in　thorough　contradiction　to　all
the　notions　which　people　have　hitherto　entertained　in　regard　to　the
procedure　of　the　human　understanding。　According　to　these　opinions；
it　is　by　means　of　the　perception　and　parison　of　similar
consequences　following　upon　certain　antecedent　phenomena　that　the
understanding　is　led　to　the　discovery　of　a　rule；　according　to　which
certain　events　always　follow　certain　phenomena；　and　it　is　only　by　this
process　that　we　attain　to　the　conception　of　cause。　Upon　such　a
basis；　it　is　clear　that　this　conception　must　be　merely　empirical；
and　the　rule　which　it　furnishes　us　with…　〃Everything　that　happens　must
have　a　cause〃…　would　be　just　as　contingent　as　experience　itself。　The
universality　and　necessity　of　the　rule　or　law　would　be　perfectly
spurious　attributes　of　it。　Indeed；　it　could　not　possess　universal
validity；　inasmuch　as　it　would　not　in　this　case　be　a　priori；　but
founded　on　deduction。　But　the　same　is　the　case　with　this　law　as　with
other　pure　a　priori　representations　（e。g。；　space　and　time）；　which　we
can　draw　in　perfect　clearness　and　pleteness　from　experience；　only
because　we　had　already　placed　them　therein；　and　by　that　means；　and
by　that　alone；　had　rendered　experience　possible。　Indeed；　the　logical
clearness　of　this　representation　of　a　rule；　determining　the　series
of　events；　is　possible　only　when　we　have　made　use　thereof　in
experience。　Nevertheless；　the　recognition　of　this　rule；　as　a　condition
of　the　synthetical　unity　of　phenomena　in　time；　was　the　ground　of
experience　itself　and　consequently　preceded　it　a　priori。
　　It　is　now　our　duty　to　show　by　an　example　that　we　never；　even　in
experience；　attribute　to　an　object　the　notion　of　succession　or
effect　（of　an　event…　that　is；　the　happening　of　something　that　did
not　exist　before）；　and　distinguish　it　from　the　subjective　succession
of　apprehension；　unless　when　a　rule　lies　at　the　foundation；　which
pels　us　to　observe　this　order　of　perception　in　preference　to　any
other；　and　that；　indeed；　it　is　this　necessity　which　first　renders
possible　the　representation　of　a　succession　in　the　object。
　　We　have　representations　within　us；　of　which　also　we　can　be
conscious。　But；　however　widely　extended；　however　accurate　and
thoroughgoing　this　consciousness　may　be；　these　representations　are
still　nothing　more　than　representations；　that　is；　internal
determinations　of　the　mind　in　this　or　that　relation　of　time。　Now　how
happens　it　that　to　these　representations　we　should　set　an　object；　or
that；　in　addition　to　their　subjective　reality；　as　modifications；　we
should　still　further　attribute　to　them　a　certain　unknown　objective
reality？　It　is　clear　that　objective　significancy　cannot　consist　in　a
relation　to　another　representation　（of　that　whi