the critique of pure reason-第56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！



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　be　impossible…　or　like　certain

new　fundamental　forces　in　matter；　the　existence　of　which　is

cogitable　without　contradiction；　though；　as　examples　from　experience

are　not　forthcoming；　they　must　not　be　regarded　as　possible。

　　2。　Reality　is　something；　negation　is　nothing；　that　is；　a

conception　of　the　absence　of　an　object；　as　cold；　a　shadow　（nihil

privativum）。

　　3。　The　mere　form　of　intuition；　without　substance；　is　in　itself　no

object；　but　the　merely　formal　condition　of　an　object　（as

phenomenon）；　as　pure　space　and　pure　time。　These　are　certainly

something；　as　forms　of　intuition；　but　are　not　themselves　objects　which

are　intuited　（ens　imaginarium）。

　　4。　The　object　of　a　conception　which　is　self…contradictory；　is

nothing；　because　the　conception　is　nothing…　is　impossible；　as　a　figure

composed　of　two　straight　lines　（nihil　negativum）。

　　The　table　of　this　division　of　the　conception　of　nothing　（the

corresponding　division　of　the　conception　of　something　does　not　require

special　description）　must　therefore　be　arranged　as　follows：



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　NOTHING

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　AS



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　1

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　As　Empty　Conception

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　without　object；

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ens　rationis

　　　　　　　　　　　2　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3

　　　　　Empty　object　of　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Empty　intuition

　　　　　　a　conception；　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　without　object；

　　　　　nihil　privativum　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ens　imaginarium

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Empty　object

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　without　conception；

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　nihil　negativum



　　We　see　that　the　ens　rationis　is　distinguished　from　the　nihil

negativum　or　pure　nothing　by　the　consideration　that　the　former　must

not　be　reckoned　among　possibilities；　because　it　is　a　mere　fiction…

though　not　self…contradictory；　while　the　latter　is　completely

opposed　to　all　possibility；　inasmuch　as　the　conception　annihilates

itself。　Both；　however；　are　empty　conceptions。　　On　the　other　hand；

the　nihil　privativum　and　ens　imaginarium　are　empty　data　for

conceptions。　If　light　be　not　given　to　the　senses；　we　cannot

represent　to　ourselves　darkness；　and　if　extended　objects　are　not

perceived；　we　cannot　represent　space。　Neither　the　negation；　nor　the

mere　form　of　intuition　can；　without　something　real；　be　an　object。

INTRO

　　　　　　　　　　　TRANSCENDENTAL　LOGIC。　SECOND　DIVISION。



　　　　　　　　　　　TRANSCENDENTAL　DIALECTIC。　INTRODUCTION。



　　　　　　　　　I。　Of　Transcendental　Illusory　Appearance。



　　We　termed　dialectic　in　general　a　logic　of　appearance。　This　does

not　signify　a　doctrine　of　probability；　for　probability　is　truth；

only　cognized　upon　insufficient　grounds；　and　though　the　information　it

gives　us　is　imperfect；　it　is　not　therefore　deceitful。　Hence　it　must

not　be　separated　from　the　analytical　part　of　logic。　Still　less　must

phenomenon　and　appearance　be　held　to　be　identical。　For　truth　or

illusory　appearance　does　not　reside　in　the　object；　in　so　far　as　it

is　intuited；　but　in　the　judgement　upon　the　object；　in　so　far　as　it

is　thought。　It　is；　therefore；　quite　correct　to　say　that　the　senses

do　not　err；　not　because　they　always　judge　correctly；　but　because

they　do　not　judge　at　all。　Hence　truth　and　error；　consequently　also；

illusory　appearance　as　the　cause　of　error；　are　only　to　be　found　in　a

judgement；　that　is；　in　the　relation　of　an　object　to　our　understanding。

In　a　cognition　which　completely　harmonizes　with　the　laws　of　the

understanding；　no　error　can　exist。　In　a　representation　of　the

senses…　as　not　containing　any　judgement…　there　is　also　no　error。　But

no　power　of　nature　can　of　itself　deviate　from　its　own　laws。　Hence

neither　the　understanding　per　se　（without　the　influence　of　another

cause）；　nor　the　senses　per　se；　would　fall　into　error；　the　former　could

not；　because；　if　it　acts　only　according　to　its　own　laws；　the　effect

（the　judgement）　must　necessarily　accord　with　these　laws。　But　in

accordance　with　the　laws　of　the　understanding　consists　the　formal

element　in　all　truth。　In　the　senses　there　is　no　judgement…　neither　a

true　nor　a　false　one。　But；　as　we　have　no　source　of　cognition　besides

these　two；　it　follows　that　error　is　caused　solely　by　the　unobserved

influence　of　the　sensibility　upon　the　understanding。　And　thus　it

happens　that　the　subjective　grounds　of　a　judgement　and　are

confounded　with　the　objective；　and　cause　them　to　deviate　from　their

proper　determination；*　just　as　a　body　in　motion　would　always　of　itself

proceed　in　a　straight　line；　but　if　another　impetus　gives　to　it　a

different　direction；　it　will　then　start　off　into　a　curvilinear　line　of

motion。　To　distinguish　the　peculiar　action　of　the　understanding　from

the　power　which　mingles　with　it；　it　is　necessary　to　consider　an

erroneous　judgement　as　the　diagonal　between　two　forces；　that　determine

the　judgement　in　two　different　directions；　which；　as　it　were；　form

an　angle；　and　to　resolve　this　composite　operation　into　the　simple　ones

of　the　understanding　and　the　sensibility。　In　pure　a　priori

judgements　this　must　be　done　by　means　of　transcendental　reflection；

whereby；　as　has　been　already　shown；　each　representation　has　its

place　appointed　in　the　corresponding　faculty　of　cognition；　and

consequently　the　influence　of　the　one　faculty　upon　the　other　is　made

apparent。



　　*Sensibility；　subjected　to　the　understanding；　as　the　object　upon

which　the　understanding　employs　its　functions；　is　the　source　of　real

cognitions。　But；　in　so　far　as　it　exercises　an　influence　upon　the

action　of　the　understanding　and　determines　it　to　judgement；

sensibility　is　itself　the　cause　of　error。



　　It　is　not　at　present　our　business　to　treat　of　empirical　illusory

appearance　（for　example；　optical　illusion）；　which　occurs　in　the

empirical　application　of　otherwise　correct　rules　of　the　understanding；

and　in　which　the　judgement　is　misled　by　the　influence　of

imagination。　Our　purpose　is　to　speak　of　transcendental　illusory

appearance；　which　influences　principles…　that　are　not　even　applied

to　experience；　for　in　this　case　we　should　possess　a　sure　test　of　their

correctness…　but　which　leads　us；　in　disregard　of　all　the　warnings　of

criticism；　completely　beyond　the　empirical　employment　of　the

categories　and　deludes　us　with　the　chimera　of　an　extension　of　the

sphere　of　the　pure　understanding。　We　shall　term　those　principles　the

application　of　which　is　confined　entirely　within　the　limits　of

possible　experience；　immanent；　those；　on　the　other　hand；　which

transgress　these　limits；　we　shall　call　transcendent　principles。　But　by

these　latter　I　do　not　understand　principles　of　the　transcendental

use　or　misuse　of　the　categories；　which　is　in　reality　a　mere　fault　of

the　judgement　when　not　under　due　restraint　from　criticism；　and

therefore　not　paying　sufficient　attention　to　the　limits　of　the

sphere　in　which　the　pure　understanding　is　allowed　to　exercise　its

functions；　but　real　principles　which　exhort　us　to　break　down　all　those

barriers；　and　to　lay　claim　to　a　perfectly　new　field　of　cognition；

which　recognizes　no　line　of　demarcation。　Thus　transcendental　and

transcendent　are　not　identical　terms。　The　principles　of　the　pure

understanding；　which　we　have　already　propounded；　ought　to　be　of

empirical　and　not　of　transcendental　use；　that　is；　they　are　not

applicable　to　any　object　beyond　the　sphere　of　experience。　A

principle　which　removes　these　limits；　nay；　which　authorizes　us　to

overstep　them；　is　called　transcendent。　If　our　criticism　can　succeed　in

exposing　the　illusion　in　these　pretended　principles；　those　which　are

limited　in　their　employment　to　the　sphere　of　experience　may　be　called；

in　opposition　to　the　others；　immanent　principles　of　the　pure

understanding。

　　Logical　illusion；　which　consists　merely　in　the　imitation　of　the　form

of　reason　（the　illusion　in　sophistical　syllogisms）；　arises　entirely

from　a　want　of　due　attention　to　logical　rules。　So　soon　as　the

attention　is　awakened　to　the　case　before　us；　this　illusion　totally