the critique of pure reason- 第24部分

a　priori　intuition　upon　which；　antecedently　to　experience；　they

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

objective　validity　and　proper　limits　of　their　use；　but　that　even　our

conception　of　space　is　rendered　equivocal；　inasmuch　as　we　are　very

ready　with　the　aid　of　the　categories；　to　carry　the　use　of　this

conception　beyond　the　conditions　of　sensuous　intuition…　and；　for

this　reason；　we　have　already　found　a　transcendental　deduction　of　it

needful。　The　reader；　then；　must　be　quite　convinced　of　the　absolute

necessity　of　a　transcendental　deduction；　before　taking　a　single　step

in　the　field　of　pure　reason；　because　otherwise　he　goes　to　work

blindly；　and　after　he　has　wondered　about　in　all　directions；　returns　to

the　state　of　utter　ignorance　from　which　he　started。　He　ought；

moreover；　clearly　to　recognize　beforehand　the　unavoidable　difficulties

in　his　undertaking；　so　that　he　may　not　afterwards　complain　of　the

obscurity　in　which　the　subject　itself　is　deeply　involved；　or　become

too　soon　impatient　of　the　obstacles　in　his　path；　because　we　have　a

choice　of　only　two　things…　either　at　once　to　give　up　all　pretensions

to　knowledge　beyond　the　limits　of　possible　experience；　or　to　bring

this　critical　investigation　to　completion。

　　We　have　been　able；　with　very　little　trouble；　to　make　it

comprehensible　how　the　conceptions　of　space　and　time；　although　a

priori　cognitions；　must　necessarily　apply　to　external　objects；　and

render　a　synthetical　cognition　of　these　possible；　independently　of　all

experience。　For　inasmuch　as　only　by　means　of　such　pure　form　of

sensibility　an　object　can　appear　to　us；　that　is；　be　an　object　of

empirical　intuition；　space　and　time　are　pure　intuitions；　which　contain

a　priori　the　condition　of　the　possibility　of　objects　as　phenomena；　and

an　a　priori　synthesis　in　these　intuitions　possesses　objective

validity。

　　On　the　other　hand；　the　categories　of　the　understanding　do　not

represent　the　conditions　under　which　objects　are　given　to　us　in

intuition；　objects　can　consequently　appear　to　us　without　necessarily

connecting　themselves　with　these；　and　consequently　without　any

necessity　binding　on　the　understanding　to　contain　a　priori　the

conditions　of　these　objects。　Thus　we　find　ourselves　involved　in　a

difficulty　which　did　not　present　itself　in　the　sphere　of

sensibility；　that　is　to　say；　we　cannot　discover　how　the　subjective

conditions　of　thought　can　have　objective　validity；　in　other　words；　can

become　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　all　cognition　of　objects；

for　phenomena　may　certainly　be　given　to　us　in　intuition　without　any

help　from　the　functions　of　the　understanding。　Let　us　take；　for

example；　the　conception　of　cause；　which　indicates　a　peculiar　kind　of

synthesis；　namely；　that　with　something；　A；　something　entirely

different；　B；　is　connected　according　to　a　law。　It　is　not　a　priori

manifest　why　phenomena　should　contain　anything　of　this　kind　（we　are　of

course　debarred　from　appealing　for　proof　to　experience；　for　the

objective　validity　of　this　conception　must　be　demonstrated　a

priori）；　and　it　hence　remains　doubtful　a　priori；　whether　such　a

conception　be　not　quite　void　and　without　any　corresponding　object

among　phenomena。　For　that　objects　of　sensuous　intuition　must

correspond　to　the　formal　conditions　of　sensibility　existing　a　priori

in　the　mind　is　quite　evident；　from　the　fact　that　without　these　they

could　not　be　objects　for　us；　but　that　they　must　also　correspond　to　the

conditions　which　understanding　requires　for　the　synthetical　unity　of

thought　is　an　assertion；　the　grounds　for　which　are　not　so　easily　to　be

discovered。　For　phenomena　might　be　so　constituted　as　not　to　correspond

to　the　conditions　of　the　unity　of　thought；　and　all　things　might　lie　in

such　confusion　that；　for　example；　nothing　could　be　met　with　in　the

sphere　of　phenomena　to　suggest　a　law　of　synthesis；　and　so　correspond

to　the　conception　of　cause　and　effect；　so　that　this　conception　would

be　quite　void；　null；　and　without　significance。　Phenomena　would

nevertheless　continue　to　present　objects　to　our　intuition；　for　mere

intuition　　does　not　in　any　respect　stand　in　need　of　the　functions　of

thought。

　　If　we　thought　to　free　ourselves　from　the　labour　of　these

investigations　by　saying：　〃Experience　is　constantly　offering　us

examples　of　the　relation　of　cause　and　effect　in　phenomena；　and

presents　us　with　abundant　opportunity　of　abstracting　the　conception　of

cause；　and　so　at　the　same　time　of　corroborating　the　objective　validity

of　this　conception〃；　we　should　in　this　case　be　overlooking　the　fact；

that　the　conception　of　cause　cannot　arise　in　this　way　at　all；　that；　on

the　contrary；　it　must　either　have　an　a　priori　basis　in　the；

understanding；　or　be　rejected　as　a　mere　chimera。　For　this　conception

demands　that　something；　A；　should　be　of　such　a　nature　that　something

else；　B；　should　follow　from　it　necessarily；　and　according　to　an

absolutely　universal　law。　We　may　certainly　collect　from　phenomena　a

law；　according　to　which　this　or　that　usually　happens；　but　the

element　of　necessity　is　not　to　be　found　in　it。　Hence　it　is　evident

that　to　the　synthesis　of　cause　and　effect　belongs　a　dignity；　which

is　utterly　wanting　in　any　empirical　synthesis；　for　it　is　no　mere

mechanical　synthesis；　by　means　of　addition；　but　a　dynamical　one；

that　is　to　say；　the　effect　is　not　to　be　cogitated　as　merely　annexed　to

the　cause；　but　as　posited　by　and　through　the　cause；　and　resulting　from

it。　The　strict　universality　of　this　law　never　can　be　a

characteristic　of　empirical　laws；　which　obtain　through　induction

only　a　comparative　universality；　that　is；　an　extended　range　of

practical　application。　But　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding

would　entirely　lose　all　their　peculiar　character；　if　we　treated　them

merely　as　the　productions　of　experience。



　　　　　Transition　to　the　Transcendental　Deduction　of　the

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Categories。　SS　10



　　There　are　only　two　possible　ways　in　which　synthetical　representation

and　its　objects　can　coincide　with　and　relate　necessarily　to　each

other；　and；　as　it　were；　meet　together。　Either　the　object　alone　makes

the　representation　possible；　or　the　representation　alone　makes　the

object　possible。　In　the　former　case；　the　relation　between　them　is　only

empirical；　and　an　a　priori　representation　is　impossible。　And　this　is

the　case　with　phenomena；　as　regards　that　in　them　which　is　referable　to

mere　sensation。　In　the　latter　case…　although　representation　alone　（for

of　its　causality；　by　means　of　the　will；　we　do　not　here　speak）　does　not

produce　the　object　as　to　its　existence；　it　must　nevertheless　be　a

priori　determinative　in　regard　to　the　object；　if　it　is　only　by　means

of　the　representation　that　we　can　cognize　anything　as　an　object。　Now

there　are　only　two　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　a　cognition　of

objects；　firstly；　intuition；　by　means　of　which　the　object；　though　only

as　phenomenon；　is　given；　secondly；　conception；　by　means　of　which　the

object　which　corresponds　to　this　intuition　is　thought。　But　it　is

evident　from　what　has　been　said　on　aesthetic　that　the　first　condition；

under　which　alone　objects　can　be　intuited；　must　in　fact　exist；　as　a

formal　basis　for　them；　a　priori　in　the　mind。　With　this　formal

condition　of　sensibility；　therefore；　all　phenomena　necessarily

correspond；　because　it　is　only　through　it　that　they　can　be　phenomena

at　all；　that　is；　can　be　empirically　intuited　and　given。　Now　the

question　is　whether　there　do　not　exist；　a　priori　in　the　mind；

conceptions　of　understanding　also；　as　conditions　under　which　alone

something；　if　not　intuited；　is　yet　thought　as　object。　If　this　question

be　answered　in　the　affirmative；　it　follows　that　all　empirical

cognition　of　objects　is　necessarily　conformable　to　such　conceptions；

since；　if　they　are　not　presupposed；　it　is　impossible　that　anything　can

be　an　object　of　experience。　Now　all　experience　contains；　besides　the

intuition　of　the　senses　through　which　an　object　is　given；　a　conception

also　of　an　object　that　is　given　in　intuition。　Accordingly；　conceptions

of　objects　in　general　must　lie　as　a　priori　conditions　at　the

foundation　of　all　empirical　cognition；　and　consequently；　the　objective

validity　of　the　categories；　as　a　priori　conceptions；　will　rest　upon

this；　that　experience　（as　far　as　regards　the　form　of　thought）　is

possible　only　by　their　means。　For　in　that　case　they　apply

necessarily　and　a　priori　to　objects　of　experience；　because　only

through　them　can　an　object　of　experience　be　thought。

　　The　whole　aim　of　the　transcendental　deduction　of　all　a　priori

conceptions　is　to　show　that　these　conceptions　are　a　priori

conditions　of　the　possibility　of　all　experience。　Conceptions　which

afford　us　the　objective　foundation　of　the　possibility　of　experience

are　for　that　very　reason　necessary。　But　the　analysis　of　the

experiences　in　which　they　are　met　with　is　not　deduction；　but　only　an

illustration　of　them；　because　from　experience　they　could　never

derive　the　attribute　of　necessity。　Without　their　original

applicability　and　relation　to　all　possible　experience；　in　which　all

objects　of　cognition　present　themselves；　the　relation　of　the

categories　to　objects；　of　whatever　nature；　would　be　quite

incomprehensible。

　　The　celebrated　Locke；　for　want　of　due　reflection　on　these　points；

and　because　he　met　with　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding　in

experience；　sought　also　to　deduce　them　from　experience；　and　yet

proceeded　so　inconsequently　as　to　attempt；　with　their　aid；　to　arrive

it　cognitions　which　lie　far　beyond　the　limits　of　all　experience。　David

Hume　perceived　that；　to　render　this　possible；　it　was　necessary　that

the　conceptions　should　have　an　a　priori　origin。　But　as　he　could　not

explain　how　it　was　possible　that　conceptions　which　are　not　connected

with　each　other　in　the　understanding　must　nevertheless　be　thought　as

necessarily　connected　in　the　object…　and　it　never　occurred　to　him　that

the　understanding　itself　might；　perhaps；　by　means　of　these

conceptions；　be　the　author　of