the critique of pure reason-第84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！



conditioned　to　the　conditions　not　given　contemporaneously　and　along

with　it；　but　discoverable　only　through　the　empirical　regress。　We　are

not；　however；　entitled　to　affirm　of　a　whole　of　this　kind；　which　is

divisible　in　infinitum；　that　it　consists　of　an　infinite　number　of

parts。　For；　although　all　the　parts　are　contained　in　the　intuition　of

the　whole；　the　whole　division　is　not　contained　therein。　The　division

is　contained　only　in　the　progressing　decomposition…　in　the　regress

itself；　which　is　the　condition　of　the　possibility　and　actuality　of　the

series。　Now；　as　this　regress　is　infinite；　all　the　members　（parts）　to

which　it　attains　must　be　contained　in　the　given　whole　as　an　aggregate。

But　the　complete　series　of　division　is　not　contained　therein。　For　this

series；　being　infinite　in　succession　and　always　incomplete；　cannot

represent　an　infinite　number　of　members；　and　still　less　a

composition　of　these　members　into　a　whole。

　　To　apply　this　remark　to　space。　Every　limited　part　of　space　presented

to　intuition　is　a　whole；　the　parts　of　which　are　always　spaces…　to

whatever　extent　subdivided。　Every　limited　space　is　hence　divisible

to　infinity。

　　Let　us　again　apply　the　remark　to　an　external　phenomenon　enclosed

in　limits；　that　is；　a　body。　The　divisibility　of　a　body　rests　upon

the　divisibility　of　space；　which　is　the　condition　of　the　possibility

of　the　body　as　an　extended　whole。　A　body　is　consequently　divisible

to　infinity；　though　it　does　not；　for　that　reason；　consist　of　an

infinite　number　of　parts。

　　It　certainly　seems　that；　as　a　body　must　be　cogitated　as　substance　in

space；　the　law　of　divisibility　would　not　be　applicable　to　it　as

substance。　For　we　may　and　ought　to　grant；　in　the　case　of　space；　that

division　or　decomposition；　to　any　extent；　never　can　utterly　annihilate

composition　（that　is　to　say；　the　smallest　part　of　space　must　still

consist　of　spaces）；　otherwise　space　would　entirely　cease　to　exist…

which　is　impossible。　But；　the　assertion　on　the　other　band　that　when

all　composition　in　matter　is　annihilated　in　thought；　nothing

remains；　does　not　seem　to　harmonize　with　the　conception　of

substance；　which　must　be　properly　the　subject　of　all　composition　and

must　remain；　even　after　the　conjunction　of　its　attributes　in　space…

which　constituted　a　body…　is　annihilated　in　thought。　But　this　is　not

the　case　with　substance　in　the　phenomenal　world；　which　is　not　a

thing　in　itself　cogitated　by　the　pure　category。　Phenomenal　substance

is　not　an　absolute　subject；　it　is　merely　a　permanent　sensuous　image；

and　nothing　more　than　an　intuition；　in　which　the　unconditioned　is

not　to　be　found。

　　But；　although　this　rule　of　progress　to　infinity　is　legitimate　and

applicable　to　the　subdivision　of　a　phenomenon；　as　a　mere　occupation　or

filling　of　space；　it　is　not　applicable　to　a　whole　consisting　of　a

number　of　distinct　parts　and　constituting　a　quantum　discretum…　that　is

to　say；　an　organized　body。　It　cannot　be　admitted　that　every　part　in　an

organized　whole　is　itself　organized；　and　that；　in　analysing　it　to

infinity；　we　must　always　meet　with　organized　parts；　although　we　may

allow　that　the　parts　of　the　matter　which　we　decompose　in　infinitum；

may　be　organized。　For　the　infinity　of　the　division　of　a　phenomenon

in　space　rests　altogether　on　the　fact　that　the　divisibility　of　a

phenomenon　is　given　only　in　and　through　this　infinity；　that　is；　an

undetermined　number　of　parts　is　given；　while　the　parts　themselves

are　given　and　determined　only　in　and　through　the　subdivision；　in　a

word；　the　infinity　of　the　division　necessarily　presupposes　that　the

whole　is　not　already　divided　in　se。　Hence　our　division　determines　a

number　of　parts　in　the　whole…　a　number　which　extends　just　as　far　as

the　actual　regress　in　the　division；　while；　on　the　other　hand；　the　very

notion　of　a　body　organized　to　infinity　represents　the　whole　as　already

and　in　itself　divided。　We　expect；　therefore；　to　find　in　it　a

determinate；　but　at　the　same　time；　infinite；　number　of　parts…　which　is

self…contradictory。　For　we　should　thus　have　a　whole　containing　a

series　of　members　which　could　not　be　completed　in　any　regress…　which

is　infinite；　and　at　the　same　time　complete　in　an　organized

composite。　Infinite　divisibility　is　applicable　only　to　a　quantum

continuum；　and　is　based　entirely　on　the　infinite　divisibility　of

space；　But　in　a　quantum　discretum　the　multitude　of　parts　or　units　is

always　determined；　and　hence　always　equal　to　some　number。　To　what

extent　a　body　may　be　organized；　experience　alone　can　inform　us；　and

although；　so　far　as　our　experience　of　this　or　that　body　has

extended；　we　may　not　have　discovered　any　inorganic　part；　such　parts

must　exist　in　possible　experience。　But　how　far　the　transcendental

division　of　a　phenomenon　must　extend；　we　cannot　know　from

experience…　it　is　a　question　which　experience　cannot　answer；　it　is

answered　only　by　the　principle　of　reason　which　forbids　us　to

consider　the　empirical　regress；　in　the　analysis　of　extended　body；　as

ever　absolutely　complete。



　　　　　Concluding　Remark　on　the　Solution　of　the　Transcendental

　　　　　　　　　　Mathematical　Ideas…　and　Introductory　to　the

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Solution　of　the　Dynamical　Ideas。



　　We　presented　the　antinomy　of　pure　reason　in　a　tabular　form；　and　we

endeavoured　to　show　the　ground　of　this　self…contradiction　on　the

part　of　reason；　and　the　only　means　of　bringing　it　to　a　conclusion…

znamely；　by　declaring　both　contradictory　statements　to　be　false。　We

represented　in　these　antinomies　the　conditions　of　phenomena　as

belonging　to　the　conditioned　according　to　relations　of　space　and　time…

which　is　the　usual　supposition　of　the　common　understanding。　In　this

respect；　all　dialectical　representations　of　totality；　in　the　series　of

conditions　to　a　given　conditioned；　were　perfectly　homogeneous。　The

condition　was　always　a　member　of　the　series　along　with　the

conditioned；　and　thus　the　homogeneity　of　the　whole　series　was　assured。

In　this　case　the　regress　could　never　be　cogitated　as　complete；　or；

if　this　was　the　case；　a　member　really　conditioned　was　falsely　regarded

as　a　primal　member；　consequently　as　unconditioned。　In　such　an

antinomy；　therefore；　we　did　not　consider　the　object；　that　is；　the

conditioned；　but　the　series　of　conditions　belonging　to　the　object；　and

the　magnitude　of　that　series。　And　thus　arose　the　difficulty…　a

difficulty　not　to　be　settled　by　any　decision　regarding　the　claims　of

the　two　parties；　but　simply　by　cutting　the　knot…　by　declaring　the

series　proposed　by　reason　to　be　either　too　long　or　too　short　for　the

understanding；　which　could　in　neither　case　make　its　conceptions

adequate　with　the　ideas。

　　But　we　have　overlooked；　up　to　this　point；　an　essential　difference

existing　between　the　conceptions　of　the　understanding　which　reason

endeavours　to　raise　to　the　rank　of　ideas…　two　of　these　indicating　a

mathematical；　and　two　a　dynamical　synthesis　of　phenomena。　Hitherto；　it

was　necessary　to　signalize　this　distinction；　for；　just　as　in　our

general　representation　of　all　transcendental　ideas；　we　considered　them

under　phenomenal　conditions；　so；　in　the　two　mathematical　ideas；　our

discussion　is　concerned　solely　with　an　object　in　the　world　of

phenomena。　But　as　we　are　now　about　to　proceed　to　the　consideration

of　the　dynamical　conceptions　of　the　understanding；　and　their

adequateness　with　ideas；　we　must　not　lose　sight　of　this　distinction。

We　shall　find　that　it　opens　up　to　us　an　entirely　new　view　of　the

conflict　in　which　reason　is　involved。　For；　while　in　the　first　two

antinomies；　both　parties　were　dismissed；　on　the　ground　of　having

advanced　statements　based　upon　false　hypothesis；　in　the　present　case

the　hope　appears　of　discovering　a　hypothesis　which　may　be　consistent

with　the　demands　of　reason；　and；　the　judge　completing　the　statement　of

the　grounds　of　claim；　which　both　parties　had　left　in　an　unsatisfactory

state；　the　question　may　be　settled　on　its　own　merits；　not　by

dismissing　the　claimants；　but　by　a　comparison　of　the　arguments　on　both

sides。　If　we　consider　merely　their　extension；　and　whether　they　are

adequate　with　ideas；　the　series　of　conditions　may　be　regarded　as　all

homogeneous。　But　the　conception　of　the　understanding　which　lies　at　the

basis　of　these　ideas；　contains　either　a　synthesis　of　the　homogeneous

（presupposed　in　every　quantity…　in　its　composition　as　well　as　in　its

division）　or　of　the　heterogeneous；　which　is　the　case　in　the

dynamical　synthesis　of　cause　and　effect；　as　well　as　of　the　necessary

and　the　contingent。

　　Thus　it　happens　that　in　the　mathematical　series　of　phenomena　no

other　than　a　sensuous　condition　is　admissible…　a　condition　which　is

itself　a　member　of　the　series；　while　the　dynamical　series　of

sensuous　conditions　admits　a　heterogeneous　condition；　which　is　not　a

member　of　the　series；　but；　as　purely　intelligible；　lies　out　of　and

beyond　it。　And　thus　reason　is　satisfied；　and　an　unconditioned　placed

at　the　head　of　the　series　of　phenomena；　without　introducing

confusion　into　or　discontinuing　it；　contrary　to　the　principles　of

the　understanding。

　　Now；　from　the　fact　that　the　dynamical　ideas　admit　a　condition　of

phenomena　which　does　not　form　a　part　of　the　series　of　phenomena；

arises　a　result　which　we　should　not　have　expected　from　an　antinomy。　In

former　cases；　the　result　was　that　both　contradictory　dialectical

statements　were　declared　to　be　false。　In　the　present　case；　we　find　the

conditioned　in　the　dynamical　series　connected　with　an　empirically

unconditioned；　but　non…sensuous　condition；　and　thus　satisfaction　is

done　to　the　understanding　on　the　one　hand　and　to　the　reason　on　the

other。*　While；　moreover；　the　dialectical　arguments　for　unconditioned

totality　in　mere　phenomena　fall　to　the　ground；　both　propositions　of

reason　may　be　shown　to　be　true　in　their　proper　signification。　This

could　not　happen　in　the　case　of　the　cosmological　ideas　which

demanded　a　mathematically　unconditioned　unity；　for　no　condition

could　be　placed　at　the　head　of　the　series　of　phenomena；　except　one

which　w