the critique of pure reason- 第119部分

be　no　hindrance　to　the　understanding　in　the　case　of　phenomena；

because；　as　they　are　to　us　nothing　more　than　phenomena；　we　have　no

right　to　look　for　anything　like　completeness　in　the　synthesis　of　the

series　of　their　conditions。

　　Transcendental　hypotheses　are　therefore　inadmissible；　and　we

cannot　use　the　liberty　of　employing；　in　the　absence　of　physical；

hyperphysical　grounds　of　explanation。　And　this　for　two　reasons；　first；

because　such　hypothesis　do　not　advance　reason；　but　rather　stop　it　in

its　progress；　secondly；　because　this　licence　would　render　fruitless

all　its　exertions　in　its　own　proper　sphere；　which　is　that　of

experience。　For；　when　the　explanation　of　natural　phenomena　happens

to　be　difficult；　we　have　constantly　at　hand　a　transcendental　ground　of

explanation；　which　lifts　us　above　the　necessity　of　investigating

nature；　and　our　inquiries　are　brought　to　a　close；　not　because　we

have　obtained　all　the　requisite　knowledge；　but　because　we　abut　upon

a　principle　which　is　incomprehensible　and　which；　indeed；　is　so　far

back　in　the　track　of　thought　as　to　contain　the　conception　of　the

absolutely　primal　being。

　　The　next　requisite　for　the　admissibility　of　a　hypothesis　is　its

sufficiency。　That　is；　it　must　determine　a　priori　the　consequences

which　are　given　in　experience　and　which　are　supposed　to　follow　from

the　hypothesis　itself。　If　we　require　to　employ　auxiliary　hypotheses；

the　suspicion　naturally　arises　that　they　are　mere　fictions；　because

the　necessity　for　each　of　them　requires　the　same　justification　as　in

the　case　of　the　original　hypothesis；　and　thus　their　testimony　is

invalid。　If　we　suppose　the　existence　of　an　infinitely　perfect　cause；

we　possess　sufficient　grounds　for　the　explanation　of　the　conformity　to

aims；　the　order　and　the　greatness　which　we　observe　in　the　universe；

but　we　find　ourselves　obliged；　when　we　observe　the　evil　in　the　world

and　the　exceptions　to　these　laws；　to　employ　new　hypothesis　in

support　of　the　original　one。　We　employ　the　idea　of　the　simple　nature

of　the　human　soul　as　the　foundation　of　all　the　theories　we　may　form　of

its　phenomena；　but　when　we　meet　with　difficulties　in　our　way；　when

we　observe　in　the　soul　phenomena　similar　to　the　changes　which　take

place　in　matter；　we　require　to　call　in　new　auxiliary　hypotheses。　These

may；　indeed；　not　be　false；　but　we　do　not　know　them　to　be　true；　because

the　only　witness　to　their　certitude　is　the　hypothesis　which　they

themselves　have　been　called　in　to　explain。

　　We　are　not　discussing　the　above…mentioned　assertions　regarding　the

immaterial　unity　of　the　soul　and　the　existence　of　a　Supreme　Being　as

dogmata；　which　certain　philosophers　profess　to　demonstrate　a　priori；

but　purely　as　hypotheses。　In　the　former　case；　the　dogmatist　must

take　care　that　his　arguments　possess　the　apodeictic　certainty　of　a

demonstration。　For　the　assertion　that　the　reality　of　such　ideas　is

probable　is　as　absurd　as　a　proof　of　the　probability　of　a　proposition

in　geometry。　Pure　abstract　reason；　apart　from　all　experience；　can

either　cognize　nothing　at　all；　and　hence　the　judgements　it　enounces

are　never　mere　opinions；　they　are　either　apodeictic　certainties；　or

declarations　that　nothing　can　be　known　on　the　subject。　Opinions　and

probable　judgements　on　the　nature　of　things　can　only　be　employed　to

explain　given　phenomena；　or　they　may　relate　to　the　effect；　in

accordance　with　empirical　laws；　of　an　actually　existing　cause。　In

other　words；　we　must　restrict　the　sphere　of　opinion　to　the　world　of

experience　and　nature。　Beyond　this　region　opinion　is　mere　invention；

unless　we　are　groping　about　for　the　truth　on　a　path　not　yet　fully

known；　and　have　some　hopes　of　stumbling　upon　it　by　chance。

　　But；　although　hypotheses　are　inadmissible　in　answers　to　the

questions　of　pure　speculative　reason；　they　may　be　employed　in　the

defence　of　these　answers。　That　is　to　say；　hypotheses　are　admissible　in

polemic；　but　not　in　the　sphere　of　dogmatism。　By　the　defence　of

statements　of　this　character；　I　do　not　mean　an　attempt　at

discovering　new　grounds　for　their　support；　but　merely　the　refutation

of　the　arguments　of　opponents。　All　a　priori　synthetical　propositions

possess　the　peculiarity　that；　although　the　philosopher　who　maintains

the　reality　of　the　ideas　contained　in　the　proposition　is　not　in

possession　of　sufficient　knowledge　to　establish　the　certainty　of　his

statements；　his　opponent　is　as　little　able　to　prove　the　truth　of　the

opposite。　This　equality　of　fortune　does　not　allow　the　one　party　to

be　superior　to　the　other　in　the　sphere　of　speculative　cognition；　and

it　is　this　sphere；　accordingly；　that　is　the　proper　arena　of　these

endless　speculative　conflicts。　But　we　shall　afterwards　show　that；　in

relation　to　its　practical　exercise；　Reason　has　the　right　of

admitting　what；　in　the　field　of　pure　speculation；　she　would　not　be

justified　in　supposing；　except　upon　perfectly　sufficient　grounds；

because　all　such　suppositions　destroy　the　necessary　completeness　of

speculation…　a　condition　which　the　practical　reason；　however；　does　not

consider　to　be　requisite。　In　this　sphere；　therefore；　Reason　is

mistress　of　a　possession；　her　title　to　which　she　does　not　require　to

prove…　which；　in　fact；　she　could　not　do。　The　burden　of　proof

accordingly　rests　upon　the　opponent。　But　as　he　has　just　as　little

knowledge　regarding　the　subject　discussed；　and　is　as　little　able　to

prove　the　non…existence　of　the　object　of　an　idea；　as　the　philosopher

on　the　other　side　is　to　demonstrate　its　reality；　it　is　evident　that

there　is　an　advantage　on　the　side　of　the　philosopher　who　maintains　his

proposition　as　a　practically　necessary　supposition　（melior　est

conditio　possidentis）。　For　he　is　at　liberty　to　employ；　in

self…defence；　the　same　weapons　as　his　opponent　makes　use　of　in

attacking　him；　that　is；　he　has　a　right　to　use　hypotheses　not　for　the

purpose　of　supporting　the　arguments　in　favour　of　his　own　propositions；

but　to　show　that　his　opponent　knows　no　more　than　himself　regarding　the

subject　under　'discussion　and　cannot　boast　of　any　speculative

advantage。

　　Hypotheses　are；　therefore；　admissible　in　the　sphere　of　pure　reason

only　as　weapons　for　self…defence；　and　not　as　supports　to　dogmatical

assertions。　But　the　opposing　party　we　must　always　seek　for　in

ourselves。　For　speculative　reason　is；　in　the　sphere　of

transcendentalism；　dialectical　in　its　own　nature。　The　difficulties　and

objections　we　have　to　fear　lie　in　ourselves。　They　are　like　old　but

never　superannuated　claims；　and　we　must　seek　them　out；　and　settle　them

once　and　for　ever；　if　we　are　to　expect　a　permanent　peace。　External

tranquility　is　hollow　and　unreal。　The　root　of　these　contradictions；

which　lies　in　the　nature　of　human　reason；　must　be　destroyed；　and

this　can　only　be　done　by　giving　it；　in　the　first　instance；　freedom

to　grow；　nay；　by　nourishing　it；　that　it　may　send　out　shoots；　and

thus　betray　its　own　existence。　It　is　our　duty；　therefore；　to　try　to

discover　new　objections；　to　put　weapons　in　the　bands　of　our

opponent；　and　to　grant　him　the　most　favourable　position　in　the　arena

that　he　can　wish。　We　have　nothing　to　fear　from　these　concessions；　on

the　contrary；　we　may　rather　hope　that　we　shall　thus　make　ourselves

master　of　a　possession　which　no　one　will　ever　venture　to　dispute。

　　The　thinker　requires；　to　be　fully　equipped；　the　hypotheses　of　pure

reason；　which；　although　but　leaden　weapons　（for　they　have　not　been

steeled　in　the　armoury　of　experience）；　are　as　useful　as　any　that　can

be　employed　by　his　opponents。　If；　accordingly；　we　have　assumed；　from　a

non…speculative　point　of　view；　the　immaterial　nature　of　the　soul；

and　are　met　by　the　objection　that　experience　seems　to　prove　that　the

growth　and　decay　of　our　mental　faculties　are　mere　modifications　of　the

sensuous　organism…　we　can　weaken　the　force　of　this　objection　by　the

assumption　that　the　body　is　nothing　but　the　fundamental　phenomenon；　to

which；　as　a　necessary　condition；　all　sensibility；　and　consequently　all

thought；　relates　in　the　present　state　of　our　existence；　and　that　the

separation　of　soul　and　body　forms　the　conclusion　of　the　sensuous

exercise　of　our　power　of　cognition　and　the　beginning　of　the

intellectual。　The　body　would；　in　this　view　of　the　question；　be

regarded；　not　as　the　cause　of　thought；　but　merely　as　its　restrictive

condition；　as　promotive　of　the　sensuous　and　animal；　but　as　a　hindrance

to　the　pure　and　spiritual　life；　and　the　dependence　of　the　animal

life　on　the　constitution　of　the　body；　would　not　prove　that　the　whole

life　of　man　was　also　dependent　on　the　state　of　the　organism。　We

might　go　still　farther；　and　discover　new　objections；　or　carry　out　to

their　extreme　consequences　those　which　have　already　been　adduced。

　　Generation；　in　the　human　race　as　well　as　among　the　irrational

animals；　depends　on　so　many　accidents…　of　occasion；　of　proper

sustenance；　of　the　laws　enacted　by　the　government　of　a　country　of　vice

even；　that　it　is　difficult　to　believe　in　the　eternal　existence　of　a

being　whose　life　has　begun　under　circumstances　so　mean　and　trivial；

and　so　entirely　dependent　upon　our　own　control。　As　regards　the

continuance　of　the　existence　of　the　whole　race；　we　need　have　no

difficulties；　for　accident　in　single　cases　is　subject　to　general　laws；

but；　in　the　case　of　each　individual；　it　would　seem　as　if　we　could

hardly　expect　so　wonderful　an　effect　from　causes　so　insignificant。

But；　in　answer　to　these　objections；　we　may　adduce　the　transcendental

hypothesis　that　all　life　is　properly　intelligible；　and　not　subject

to　changes　of　time；　and　that　it　neither　began　in　birth；　nor　will　end

in　death。　We　may　assume　that　this　life　is　nothing　more　than　a　sensuous

representation　of　pure　spiritual　life；　that　the　whole　world　of　sense

is　but　an　image；　hovering　before　the　faculty　of　cognition　which　we

exercise　in　this　sphere；　and　with　no　more　objective　reality　than　a

dream；　and　that　if　we　could　intuite　ourselves　and　other　things　as　they

really　are；　we　should　see　ourselves　in　a　world　of　spiritual　natures；