the critique of pure reason- 第38部分

coexistence。　Accordingly；　there　are　three　rules　of　all　relations　of

time　in　phenomena；　according　to　which　the　existence　of　every

phenomenon　is　determined　in　respect　of　the　unity　of　all　time；　and

these　antecede　all　experience　and　render　it　possible。

　　The　general　principle　of　all　three　analogies　rests　on　the

necessary　unity　of　apperception　in　relation　to　all　possible

empirical　consciousness　（perception）　at　every　time；　consequently；　as

this　unity　lies　a　priori　at　the　foundation　of　all　mental　operations；

the　principle　rests　on　the　synthetical　unity　of　all　phenomena

according　to　their　relation　in　time。　For　the　original　apperception

relates　to　our　internal　sense　（the　complex　of　all　representations）；

and　indeed　relates　a　priori　to　its　form；　that　is　to　say；　the

relation　of　the　manifold　empirical　consciousness　in　time。　Now　this

manifold　must　be　combined　in　original　apperception　according　to

relations　of　time…　a　necessity　imposed　by　the　a　priori

transcendental　unity　of　apperception；　to　which　is　subjected　all　that

can　belong　to　my　（i。e。；　my　own）　cognition；　and　therefore　all　that

can　become　an　object　for　me。　This　synthetical　and　a　priori

determined　unity　in　relation　of　perceptions　in　time　is　therefore　the

rule：　〃All　empirical　determinations　of　time　must　be　subject　to　rules

of　the　general　determination　of　time〃；　and　the　analogies　of

experience；　of　which　we　are　now　about　to　treat；　must　be　rules　of

this　nature。

　　These　principles　have　this　peculiarity；　that　they　do　not　concern

phenomena；　and　the　synthesis　of　the　empirical　intuition　thereof；　but

merely　the　existence　of　phenomena　and　their　relation　to　each　other

in　regard　to　this　existence。　Now　the　mode　in　which　we　apprehend　a

thing　in　a　phenomenon　can　be　determined　a　priori　in　such　a　manner　that

the　rule　of　its　synthesis　can　give；　that　is　to　say；　can　produce　this　a

priori　intuition　in　every　empirical　example。　But　the　existence　of

phenomena　cannot　be　known　a　priori；　and　although　we　could　arrive　by

this　path　at　a　conclusion　of　the　fact　of　some　existence；　we　could

not　cognize　that　existence　determinately；　that　is　to　say；　we　should　be

incapable　of　anticipating　in　what　respect　the　empirical　intuition　of

it　would　be　distinguishable　from　that　of　others。

　　The　two　principles　above　mentioned；　which　I　called　mathematical；

in　consideration　of　the　fact　of　their　authorizing　the　application　of

mathematic　phenomena；　relate　to　these　phenomena　only　in　regard　to

their　possibility；　and　instruct　us　how　phenomena；　as　far　as　regards

their　intuition　or　the　real　in　their　perception；　can　be　generated

according　to　the　rules　of　a　mathematical　synthesis。　Consequently；

numerical　quantities；　and　with　them　the　determination　of　a

phenomenon　as　a　quantity；　can　be　employed　in　the　one　case　as　well　as

in　the　other。　Thus；　for　example；　out　of　200；000　illuminations　by　the

moon；　I　might　compose　and　give　a　priori；　that　is　construct；　the　degree

of　our　sensations　of　the　sunlight。　We　may　therefore　entitle　these

two　principles　constitutive。

　　The　case　is　very　different　with　those　principles　whose　province　it

is　to　subject　the　existence　of　phenomena　to　rules　a　priori。　For　as

existence　does　not　admit　of　being　constructed；　it　is　clear　that　they

must　only　concern　the　relations　of　existence　and　be　merely

regulative　principles。　In　this　case；　therefore；　neither　axioms　nor

anticipations　are　to　be　thought　of。　Thus；　if　a　perception　is　given　us；

in　a　certain　relation　of　time　to　other　（although　undetermined）

perceptions；　we　cannot　then　say　a　priori；　what　and　how　great　（in

quantity）　the　other　perception　necessarily　connected　with　the　former

is；　but　only　how　it　is　connected；　quoad　its　existence；　in　this　given

modus　of　time。　Analogies　in　philosophy　mean　something　very　different

from　that　which　they　represent　in　mathematics。　In　the　latter　they

are　formulae；　which　enounce　the　equality　of　two　relations　of　quantity；

and　are　always　constitutive；　so　that　if　two　terms　of　the　proportion

are　given；　the　third　is　also　given；　that　is；　can　be　constructed　by　the

aid　of　these　formulae。　But　in　philosophy；　analogy　is　not　the

equality　of　two　quantitative　but　of　two　qualitative　relations。　In　this

case；　from　three　given　terms；　I　can　give　a　priori　and　cognize　the

relation　to　a　fourth　member；　but　not　this　fourth　term　itself；　although

I　certainly　possess　a　rule　to　guide　me　in　the　search　for　this　fourth

term　in　experience；　and　a　mark　to　assist　me　in　discovering　it。　An

analogy　of　experience　is　therefore　only　a　rule　according　to　which

unity　of　experience　must　arise　out　of　perceptions　in　respect　to

objects　（phenomena）　not　as　a　constitutive；　but　merely　as　a

regulative　principle。　The　same　holds　good　also　of　the　postulates　of

empirical　thought　in　general；　which　relate　to　the　synthesis　of　mere

intuition　（which　concerns　the　form　of　phenomena）；　the　synthesis　of

perception　（which　concerns　the　matter　of　phenomena）；　and　the　synthesis

of　experience　（which　concerns　the　relation　of　these　perceptions）。

For　they　are　only　regulative　principles；　and　clearly　distinguishable

from　the　mathematical；　which　are　constitutive；　not　indeed　in　regard　to

the　certainty　which　both　possess　a　priori；　but　in　the　mode　of　evidence

thereof；　consequently　also　in　the　manner　of　demonstration。

　　But　what　has　been　observed　of　all　synthetical　propositions；　and　must

be　particularly　remarked　in　this　place；　is　this；　that　these

analogies　possess　significance　and　validity；　not　as　principles　of

the　transcendental；　but　only　as　principles　of　the　empirical　use　of　the

understanding；　and　their　truth　can　therefore　be　proved　only　as　such；

and　that　consequently　the　phenomena　must　not　be　subjoined　directly

under　the　categories；　but　only　under　their　schemata。　For　if　the

objects　to　which　those　principles　must　be　applied　were　things　in

themselves；　it　would　be　quite　impossible　to　cognize　aught　concerning

them　synthetically　a　priori。　But　they　are　nothing　but　phenomena；　a

complete　knowledge　of　which…　a　knowledge　to　which　all　principles　a

priori　must　at　last　relate…　is　the　only　possible　experience。　It

follows　that　these　principles　can　have　nothing　else　for　their　aim　than

the　conditions　of　the　empirical　cognition　in　the　unity　of　synthesis　of

phenomena。　But　this　synthesis　is　cogitated　only　in　the　schema　of　the

pure　conception　of　the　understanding；　of　whose　unity；　as　that　of　a

synthesis　in　general；　the　category　contains　the　function

unrestricted　by　any　sensuous　condition。　These　principles　will

therefore　authorize　us　to　connect　phenomena　according　to　an　analogy；

with　the　logical　and　universal　unity　of　conceptions；　and

consequently　to　employ　the　categories　in　the　principles　themselves；

but　in　the　application　of　them　to　experience；　we　shall　use　only

their　schemata；　as　the　key　to　their　proper　application；　instead　of　the

categories；　or　rather　the　latter　as　restricting　conditions；　under

the　title　of　〃formulae〃　of　the　former。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　A。　FIRST　ANALOGY。



　　　　　　　　　　　Principle　of　the　Permanence　of　Substance。



　　　In　all　changes　of　phenomena；　substance　is　permanent；　and　the

　　　quantum　thereof　in　nature　is　neither　increased　nor　diminished。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。



　　All　phenomena　exist　in　time；　wherein　alone　as　substratum；　that　is；

as　the　permanent　form　of　the　internal　intuition；　coexistence　and

succession　can　be　represented。　Consequently　time；　in　which　all　changes

of　phenomena　must　be　cogitated；　remains　and　changes　not；　because　it　is

that　in　which　succession　and　coexistence　can　be　represented　only　as

determinations　thereof。　Now；　time　in　itself　cannot　be　an　object　of

perception。　It　follows　that　in　objects　of　perception；　that　is；　in

phenomena；　there　must　be　found　a　substratum　which　represents　time　in

general；　and　in　which　all　change　or　coexistence　can　be　perceived　by

means　of　the　relation　of　phenomena　to　it。　But　the　substratum　of　all

reality；　that　is；　of　all　that　pertains　to　the　existence　of　things；

is　substance；　all　that　pertains　to　existence　can　be　cogitated　only

as　a　determination　of　substance。　Consequently；　the　permanent；　in

relation　to　which　alone　can　all　relations　of　time　in　phenomena　be

determined；　is　substance　in　the　world　of　phenomena；　that　is；　the

real　in　phenomena；　that　which；　as　the　substratum　of　all　change；

remains　ever　the　same。　Accordingly；　as　this　cannot　change　in

existence；　its　quantity　in　nature　can　neither　be　increased　nor

diminished。

　　Our　apprehension　of　the　manifold　in　a　phenomenon　is　always

successive；　is　Consequently　always　changing。　By　it　alone　we　could；

therefore；　never　determine　whether　this　manifold；　as　an　object　of

experience；　is　coexistent　or　successive；　unless　it　had　for　a

foundation　something　fixed　and　permanent；　of　the　existence　of　which

all　succession　and　coexistence　are　nothing　but　so　many　modes　（modi

of　time）。　Only　in　the　permanent；　then；　are　relations　of　time

possible　（for　simultaneity　and　succession　are　the　only　relations　in

time）；　that　is　to　say；　the　permanent　is　the　substratum　of　our

empirical　representation　of　time　itself；　in　which　alone　all

determination　of　time　is　possible。　Permanence　is；　in　fact；　just

another　expression　for　time；　as　the　abiding　correlate　of　all　existence

of　phenomena；　and　of　all　change；　and　of　all　coexistence。　For　change

does　not　affect　time　itself；　but　only　the　phenomena　in　time　（just　as

coexistence　cannot　be　regarded　as　a　modus　of　time　itself；　seeing

that　in　time　no　parts　are　coexistent；　but　all　successive）。　If　we

were　to　attribute　succession　to　time　itself；　we　should　be　obliged　to

cogitate　another　time；　in　which　this　succession　would　be　possible。

It　is　only　by　means　of　the　permanent　that　existence　in　different　parts

of　the　successive　series　of　time　receives　a　quantity；　which　we　entitle

duration。　For　in　mere　succession；　existence　is　perpetually　vanishing

and　recommencing；　and　therefore　never　has　even　the　least　quantity。

Without　the　permanent；　then；　no　relation　in　time　is　possible。　Now；

time　in　itself　is　not　an　object　of　per