the critique of pure reason- 第23部分

VERUM；　BONUM。〃　Now；　though　the　inferences　from　this　principle　were

mere　tautological　propositions；　and　though　it　is　allowed　only　by

courtesy　to　retain　a　place　in　modern　metaphysics；　yet　a　thought

which　maintained　itself　for　such　a　length　of　time；　however　empty　it

seems　to　be；　deserves　an　investigation　of　its　origin；　and　justifies

the　conjecture　that　it　must　be　grounded　in　some　law　of　the

understanding；　which；　as　is　often　the　case；　has　only　been

erroneously　interpreted。　These　pretended　transcendental　predicates

are；　in　fact；　nothing　but　logical　requisites　and　criteria　of　all

cognition　of　objects；　and　they　employ；　as　the　basis　for　this

cognition；　the　categories　of　quantity；　namely；　unity；　plurality；　and

totality。　But　these；　which　must　be　taken　as　material　conditions；

that　is；　as　belonging　to　the　possibility　of　things　themselves；　they

employed　merely　in　a　formal　signification；　as　belonging　to　the　logical

requisites　of　all　cognition；　and　yet　most　unguardedly　changed　these

criteria　of　thought　into　properties　of　objects；　as　things　in

themselves。　Now；　in　every　cognition　of　an　object；　there　is　unity　of

conception；　which　may　be　called　qualitative　unity；　so　far　as　by　this

term　we　understand　only　the　unity　in　our　connection　of　the　manifold；

for　example；　unity　of　the　theme　in　a　play；　an　oration；　or　a　story。

Secondly；　there　is　truth　in　respect　of　the　deductions　from　it。　The

more　true　deductions　we　have　from　a　given　conception；　the　more

criteria　of　its　objective　reality。　This　we　might　call　the

qualitative　plurality　of　characteristic　marks；　which　belong　to　a

conception　as　to　a　common　foundation；　but　are　not　cogitated　as　a

quantity　in　it。　Thirdly；　there　is　perfection…　which　consists　in

this；　that　the　plurality　falls　back　upon　the　unity　of　the

conception；　and　accords　completely　with　that　conception　and　with　no

other。　This　we　may　denominate　qualitative　completeness。　Hence　it　is

evident　that　these　logical　criteria　of　the　possibility　of　cognition

are　merely　the　three　categories　of　quantity　modified　and　transformed

to　suit　an　unauthorized　manner　of　applying　them。　That　is　to　say；　the

three　categories；　in　which　the　unity　in　the　production　of　the

quantum　must　be　homogeneous　throughout；　are　transformed　solely　with

a　view　to　the　connection　of　heterogeneous　parts　of　cognition　in　one

act　of　consciousness；　by　means　of　the　quality　of　the　cognition；

which　is　the　principle　of　that　connection。　Thus　the　criterion　of　the

possibility　of　a　conception　（not　of　its　object）　is　the　definition　of

it；　in　which　the　unity　of　the　conception；　the　truth　of　all　that　may　be

immediately　deduced　from　it；　and　finally；　the　completeness　of　what　has

been　thus　deduced；　constitute　the　requisites　for　the　reproduction　of

the　whole　conception。　Thus　also；　the　criterion　or　test　of　an

hypothesis　is　the　intelligibility　of　the　received　principle　of

explanation；　or　its　unity　（without　help　from　any　subsidiary

hypothesis）…　the　truth　of　our　deductions　from　it　（consistency　with

each　other　and　with　experience）…　and　lastly；　the　completeness　of　the

principle　of　the　explanation　of　these　deductions；　which　refer　to

neither　more　nor　less　than　what　was　admitted　in　the　hypothesis；

restoring　analytically　and　a　posteriori；　what　was　cogitated

synthetically　and　a　priori。　By　the　conceptions；　therefore；　of　unity；

truth；　and　perfection；　we　have　made　no　addition　to　the

transcendental　table　of　the　categories；　which　is　complete　without

them。　We　have；　on　the　contrary；　merely　employed　the　three　categories

of　quantity；　setting　aside　their　application　to　objects　of　experience；

as　general　logical　laws　of　the　consistency　of　cognition　with　itself。

　　　CHAPTER　II　Of　the　Deduction　of　the　Pure　Conceptions　of　the

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Understanding。



　　　SECTION　I　Of　the　Principles　of　a　Transcendental　Deduction

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　in　general。　SS　9



　　Teachers　of　jurisprudence；　when　speaking　of　rights　and　claims；

distinguish　in　a　cause　the　question　of　right　（quid　juris）　from　the

question　of　fact　（quid　facti）；　and　while　they　demand　proof　of　both；

they　give　to　the　proof　of　the　former；　which　goes　to　establish　right　or

claim　in　law；　the　name　of　deduction。　Now　we　make　use　of　a　great　number

of　empirical　conceptions；　without　opposition　from　any　one；　and

consider　ourselves；　even　without　any　attempt　at　deduction；　justified

in　attaching　to　them　a　sense；　and　a　supposititious　signification；

because　we　have　always　experience　at　hand　to　demonstrate　their

objective　reality。　There　exist　also；　however；　usurped　conceptions；

such　as　fortune；　fate；　which　circulate　with　almost　universal

indulgence；　and　yet　are　occasionally　challenged　by　the　question；　〃quid

juris？〃　In　such　cases；　we　have　great　difficulty　in　discovering　any

deduction　for　these　terms；　inasmuch　as　we　cannot　produce　any

manifest　ground　of　right；　either　from　experience　or　from　reason；　on

which　the　claim　to　employ　them　can　be　founded。

　　Among　the　many　conceptions；　which　make　up　the　very　variegated　web　of

human　cognition；　some　are　destined　for　pure　use　a　priori；

independent　of　all　experience；　and　their　title　to　be　so　employed

always　requires　a　deduction；　inasmuch　as；　to　justify　such　use　of　them；

proofs　from　experience　are　not　sufficient；　but　it　is　necessary　to　know

how　these　conceptions　can　apply　to　objects　without　being　derived

from　experience。　I　term；　therefore；　an　examination　of　the　manner　in

which　conceptions　can　apply　a　priori　to　objects；　the　transcendental

deduction　of　conceptions；　and　I　distinguish　it　from　the　empirical

deduction；　which　indicates　the　mode　in　which　conception　is　obtained

through　experience　and　reflection　thereon；　consequently；　does　not

concern　itself　with　the　right；　but　only　with　the　fact　of　our　obtaining

conceptions　in　such　and　such　a　manner。　We　have　already　seen　that　we

are　in　possession　of　two　perfectly　different　kinds　of　conceptions；

which　nevertheless　agree　with　each　other　in　this；　that　they　both　apply

to　objects　completely　a　priori。　These　are　the　conceptions　of　space　and

time　as　forms　of　sensibility；　and　the　categories　as　pure　conceptions

of　the　understanding。　To　attempt　an　empirical　deduction　of　either　of

these　classes　would　be　labour　in　vain；　because　the　distinguishing

characteristic　of　their　nature　consists　in　this；　that　they　apply　to

their　objects；　without　having　borrowed　anything　from　experience

towards　the　representation　of　them。　Consequently；　if　a　deduction　of

these　conceptions　is　necessary；　it　must　always　be　transcendental。

　　Meanwhile；　with　respect　to　these　conceptions；　as　with　respect　to　all

our　cognition；　we　certainly　may　discover　in　experience；　if　not　the

principle　of　their　possibility；　yet　the　occasioning　causes　of　their

production。　It　will　be　found　that　the　impressions　of　sense　give　the

first　occasion　for　bringing　into　action　the　whole　faculty　of

cognition；　and　for　the　production　of　experience；　which　contains　two

very　dissimilar　elements；　namely；　a　matter　for　cognition；　given　by　the

senses；　and　a　certain　form　for　the　arrangement　of　this　matter；　arising

out　of　the　inner　fountain　of　pure　intuition　and　thought；　and　these；　on

occasion　given　by　sensuous　impressions；　are　called　into　exercise　and

produce　conceptions。　Such　an　investigation　into　the　first　efforts　of

our　faculty　of　cognition　to　mount　from　particular　perceptions　to

general　conceptions　is　undoubtedly　of　great　utility；　and　we　have　to

thank　the　celebrated　Locke　for　having　first　opened　the　way　for　this

inquiry。　But　a　deduction　of　the　pure　a　priori　conceptions　of　course

never　can　be　made　in　this　way；　seeing　that；　in　regard　to　their

future　employment；　which　must　be　entirely　independent　of　experience；

they　must　have　a　far　different　certificate　of　birth　to　show　from

that　of　a　descent　from　experience。　This　attempted　physiological

derivation；　which　cannot　properly　be　called　deduction；　because　it

relates　merely　to　a　quaestio　facti；　I　shall　entitle　an　explanation

of　the　possession　of　a　pure　cognition。　It　is　therefore　manifest　that

there　can　only　be　a　transcendental　deduction　of　these　conceptions

and　by　no　means　an　empirical　one；　also；　that　all　attempts　at　an

empirical　deduction；　in　regard　to　pure　a　priori　conceptions；　are　vain；

and　can　only　be　made　by　one　who　does　not　understand　the　altogether

peculiar　nature　of　these　cognitions。

　　But　although　it　is　admitted　that　the　only　possible　deduction　of　pure

a　priori　cognition　is　a　transcendental　deduction；　it　is　not；　for

that　reason；　perfectly　manifest　that　such　a　deduction　is　absolutely

necessary。　We　have　already　traced　to　their　sources　the　conceptions

of　space　and　time；　by　means　of　a　transcendental　deduction；　and　we　have

explained　and　determined　their　objective　validity　a　priori。

Geometry；　nevertheless；　advances　steadily　and　securely　in　the　province

of　pure　a　priori　cognitions；　without　needing　to　ask　from　philosophy

any　certificate　as　to　the　pure　and　legitimate　origin　of　its

fundamental　conception　of　space。　But　the　use　of　the　conception　in　this

science　extends　only　to　the　external　world　of　sense；　the　pure　form

of　the　intuition　of　which　is　space；　and　in　this　world；　therefore；

all　geometrical　cognition；　because　it　is　founded　upon　a　priori

intuition；　possesses　immediate　evidence；　and　the　objects　of　this

cognition　are　given　a　priori　（as　regards　their　form）　in　intuition　by

and　through　the　cognition　itself。　With　the　pure　conceptions　of

understanding；　on　the　contrary；　commences　the　absolute　necessity　of

seeking　a　transcendental　deduction；　not　only　of　these　conceptions

themselves；　but　likewise　of　space；　because；　inasmuch　as　they　make

affirmations　concerning　objects　not　by　means　of　the　predicates　of

intuition　and　sensibility；　but　of　pure　thought　a　priori；　they　apply　to

objects　without　any　of　the　conditions　of　sensibility。　Besides；　not

being　founded　on　experience；　they　are　not　presented　with　any　object　in

a　priori　intuition　upon　which；　antecedently　to　experience；　they

might　base　their　synthesis。　Hence　results；　not　only　doubt　as　to　the

o