the critique of pure reason-第75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！



prove　this；　we　should　require　to　know　that　the　state　of　rest　could

have　existed　in　the　very　same　time　in　which　the　motion　took　place。　Now

we　know　nothing　more　than　that　the　state　of　rest　was　actual　in　the

time　that　followed　the　state　of　motion；　consequently；　that　it　was　also

possible。　But　motion　at　one　time；　and　rest　at　another　time；　are　not

contradictorily　opposed　to　each　other。　It　follows　from　what　has　been

said　that　the　succession　of　opposite　determinations；　that　is；

change；　does　not　demonstrate　the　fact　of　contingency　as　represented　in

the　conceptions　of　the　pure　understanding；　and　that　it　cannot；

therefore；　conduct　us　to　the　fact　of　the　existence　of　a　necessary

being。　Change　proves　merely　empirical　contingency；　that　is　to　say；

that　the　new　state　could　not　have　existed　without　a　cause；　which

belongs　to　the　preceding　time。　This　cause…　even　although　it　is

regarded　as　absolutely　necessary…　must　be　presented　to　us　in　time；　and

must　belong　to　the　series　of　phenomena。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ON　THE　ANTITHESIS。



　　The　difficulties　which　meet　us；　in　our　attempt　to　rise　through　the

series　of　phenomena　to　the　existence　of　an　absolutely　necessary

supreme　cause；　must　not　originate　from　our　inability　to　establish

the　truth　of　our　mere　conceptions　of　the　necessary　existence　of　a

thing。　That　is　to　say；　our　objections　not　be　ontological；　but　must

be　directed　against　the　causal　connection　with　a　series　of　phenomena

of　a　condition　which　is　itself　unconditioned。　In　one　word；　they　must

be　cosmological　and　relate　to　empirical　laws。　We　must　show　that　the

regress　in　the　series　of　causes　（in　the　world　of　sense）　cannot

conclude　with　an　empirically　unconditioned　condition；　and　that　the

cosmological　argument　from　the　contingency　of　the　cosmical　state…　a

contingency　alleged　to　arise　from　change…　does　not　justify　us　in

accepting　a　first　cause；　that　is；　a　prime　originator　of　the　cosmical

series。

　　The　reader　will　observe　in　this　antinomy　a　very　remarkable　contrast。

The　very　same　grounds　of　proof　which　established　in　the　thesis　the

existence　of　a　supreme　being；　demonstrated　in　the　antithesis…　and　with

equal　strictness…　the　non…existence　of　such　a　being。　We　found；

first；　that　a　necessary　being　exists；　because　the　whole　time　past

contains　the　series　of　all　conditions；　and　with　it；　therefore；　the

unconditioned　（the　necessary）；　secondly；　that　there　does　not　exist　any

necessary　being；　for　the　same　reason；　that　the　whole　time　past

contains　the　series　of　all　conditions…　which　are　themselves；

therefore；　in　the　aggregate；　conditioned。　The　cause　of　this　seeming

incongruity　is　as　follows。　We　attend；　in　the　first　argument；　solely　to

the　absolute　totality　of　the　series　of　conditions；　the　one　of　which

determines　the　other　in　time；　and　thus　arrive　at　a　necessary

unconditioned。　In　the　second；　we　consider；　on　the　contrary；　the

contingency　of　everything　that　is　determined　in　the　series　of　time…

for　every　event　is　preceded　by　a　time；　in　which　the　condition　itself

must　be　determined　as　conditioned…　and　thus　everything　that　is

unconditioned　or　absolutely　necessary　disappears。　In　both；　the　mode　of

proof　is　quite　in　accordance　with　the　common　procedure　of　human

reason；　which　often　falls　into　discord　with　itself；　from　considering

an　object　from　two　different　points　of　view。　Herr　von　Mairan

regarded　the　controversy　between　two　celebrated　astronomers；　which

arose　from　a　similar　difficulty　as　to　the　choice　of　a　proper

standpoint；　as　a　phenomenon　of　sufficient　importance　to　warrant　a

separate　treatise　on　the　subject。　The　one　concluded：　the　moon　revolves

on　its　own　axis；　because　it　constantly　presents　the　same　side　to　the

earth；　the　other　declared　that　the　moon　does　not　revolve　on　its　own

axis；　for　the　same　reason。　Both　conclusions　were　perfectly　correct；

according　to　the　point　of　view　from　which　the　motions　of　the　moon　were

considered。





　　　　　　　　SECTION　III。　Of　the　Interest　of　Reason　in　these

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Self…contradictions。



　　We　have　thus　completely　before　us　the　dialectical　procedure　of　the

cosmological　ideas。　No　possible　experience　can　present　us　with　an

object　adequate　to　them　in　extent。　Nay；　more；　reason　itself　cannot

cogitate　them　as　according　with　the　general　laws　of　experience。　And

yet　they　are　not　arbitrary　fictions　of　thought。　On　the　contrary；

reason；　in　its　uninterrupted　progress　in　the　empirical　synthesis；　is

necessarily　conducted　to　them；　when　it　endeavours　to　free　from　all

conditions　and　to　comprehend　in　its　unconditioned　totality　that

which　can　only　be　determined　conditionally　in　accordance　with　the　laws

of　experience。　These　dialectical　propositions　are　so　many　attempts

to　solve　four　natural　and　unavoidable　problems　of　reason。　There　are

neither　more；　nor　can　there　be　less；　than　this　number；　because　there

are　no　other　series　of　synthetical　hypotheses；　limiting　a　priori　the

empirical　synthesis。

　　The　brilliant　claims　of　reason　striving　to　extend　its　dominion

beyond　the　limits　of　experience；　have　been　represented　above　only　in

dry　formulae；　which　contain　merely　the　grounds　of　its　pretensions。

They　have；　besides；　in　conformity　with　the　character　of　a

transcendental　philosophy；　been　freed　from　every　empirical　element；

although　the　full　splendour　of　the　promises　they　hold　out；　and　the

anticipations　they　excite；　manifests　itself　only　when　in　connection

with　empirical　cognitions。　In　the　application　of　them；　however；　and　in

the　advancing　enlargement　of　the　employment　of　reason；　while

struggling　to　rise　from　the　region　of　experience　and　to　soar　to

those　sublime　ideas；　philosophy　discovers　a　value　and　a　dignity；

which；　if　it　could　but　make　good　its　assertions；　would　raise　it　far

above　all　other　departments　of　human　knowledge…　professing；　as　it

does；　to　present　a　sure　foundation　for　our　highest　hopes　and　the

ultimate　aims　of　all　the　exertions　of　reason。　The　questions：　whether

the　world　has　a　beginning　and　a　limit　to　its　extension　in　space；

whether　there　exists　anywhere；　or　perhaps；　in　my　own　thinking　Self；　an

indivisible　and　indestructible　unity…　or　whether　nothing　but　what　is

divisible　and　transitory　exists；　whether　I　am　a　free　agent；　or；　like

other　beings；　am　bound　in　the　chains　of　nature　and　fate；　whether；

finally；　there　is　a　supreme　cause　of　the　world；　or　all　our　thought　and

speculation　must　end　with　nature　and　the　order　of　external　things…　are

questions　for　the　solution　of　which　the　mathematician　would

willingly　exchange　his　whole　science；　for　in　it　there　is　no

satisfaction　for　the　highest　aspirations　and　most　ardent　desires　of

humanity。　Nay；　it　may　even　be　said　that　the　true　value　of　mathematics…

that　pride　of　human　reason…　consists　in　this：　that　she　guides　reason

to　the　knowledge　of　nature…　in　her　greater　as　well　as　in　her　less

manifestations…　in　her　beautiful　order　and　regularity…　guides　her；

moreover；　to　an　insight　into　the　wonderful　unity　of　the　moving

forces　in　the　operations　of　nature；　far　beyond　the　expectations　of　a

philosophy　building　only　on　experience；　and　that　she　thus　encourages

philosophy　to　extend　the　province　of　reason　beyond　all　experience；　and

at　the　same　time　provides　it　with　the　most　excellent　materials　for

supporting　its　investigations；　in　so　far　as　their　nature　admits；　by

adequate　and　accordant　intuitions。

　　Unfortunately　for　speculation…　but　perhaps　fortunately　for　the

practical　interests　of　humanity…　reason；　in　the　midst　of　her　highest

anticipations；　finds　herself　hemmed　in　by　a　press　of　opposite　and

contradictory　conclusions；　from　which　neither　her　honour　nor　her

safety　will　permit　her　to　draw　back。　Nor　can　she　regard　these

conflicting　trains　of　reasoning　with　indifference　as　mere　passages

at　arms；　still　less　can　she　command　peace；　for　in　the　subject　of　the

conflict　she　has　a　deep　interest。　There　is　no　other　course　left　open

to　her　than　to　reflect　with　herself　upon　the　origin　of　this　disunion

in　reason…　whether　it　may　not　arise　from　a　mere　misunderstanding。

After　such　an　inquiry；　arrogant　claims　would　have　to　be　given　up　on

both　sides；　but　the　sovereignty　of　reason　over　understanding　and　sense

would　be　based　upon　a　sure　foundation。

　　We　shall　at　present　defer　this　radical　inquiry　and；　in　the　meantime；

consider　for　a　little　what　side　in　the　controversy　we　should　most

willingly　take；　if　we　were　obliged　to　become　partisans　at　all。　As；

in　this　case；　we　leave　out　of　sight　altogether　the　logical　criterion

of　truth；　and　merely　consult　our　own　interest　in　reference　to　the

question；　these　considerations；　although　inadequate　to　settle　the

question　of　right　in　either　party；　will　enable　us　to　comprehend　how

those　who　have　taken　part　in　the　struggle；　adopt　the　one　view　rather

than　the　other…　no　special　insight　into　the　subject；　however；　having

influenced　their　choice。　They　will；　at　the　same　time；　explain　to　us

many　other　things　by　the　way…　for　example；　the　fiery　zeal　on　the　one

side　and　the　cold　maintenance　of　their　cause　on　the　other；　why　the　one

party　has　met　with　the　warmest　approbations；　and　the　other　has

always　been　repulsed　by　irreconcilable　prejudices。

　　There　is　one　thing；　however；　that　determines　the　proper　point　of

view；　from　which　alone　this　preliminary　inquiry　can　be　instituted

and　carried　on　with　the　proper　completeness…　and　that　is　the

comparison　of　the　principles　from　which　both　sides；　thesis　and

antithesis；　proceed。　My　readers　would　remark　in　the　propositions　of

the　antithesis　a　complete　uniformity　in　the　mode　of　thought　and　a

perfect　unity　of　principle。　Its　principle　was　that　of　pure　empiricism；

not　only　in　the　explication　of　the　phenomena　in　the　world；　but　also　in

the　solution　of　the　transcendental　ideas；　even　of　that　of　the　universe

itself。　The　affirmations　of　the　thesis；　on　the　contrary；　were　based；

in　addition　to　the　empirical　mode　of　explanation　employed　in　the

series　of　phenomena；　on　intellectual　propositions；　and　its

principles　were　in　so　far　not　simple。　I　shall　term　the　thesis；　in