the critique of pure reason- 第44部分

in　this　case　the　proof　is　only　mediate。　Without　community；　every

perception　（of　a　phenomenon　in　space）　is　separated　from　every　other

and　isolated；　and　the　chain　of　empirical　representations；　that　is；

of　experience；　must；　with　the　appearance　of　a　new　object；　begin

entirely　de　novo；　without　the　least　connection　with　preceding

representations；　and　without　standing　towards　these　even　in　the

relation　of　time。　My　intention　here　is　by　no　means　to　combat　the

notion　of　empty　space；　for　it　may　exist　where　our　perceptions　cannot

exist；　inasmuch　as　they　cannot　reach　thereto；　and　where；　therefore；　no

empirical　perception　of　coexistence　takes　place。　But　in　this　case　it

is　not　an　object　of　possible　experience。



　　*German。



　　The　following　remarks　may　be　useful　in　the　way　of　explanation。　In

the　mind；　all　phenomena；　as　contents　of　a　possible　experience；　must

exist　in　community　（communio）　of　apperception　or　consciousness；　and　in

so　far　as　it　is　requisite　that　objects　be　represented　as　coexistent

and　connected；　in　so　far　must　they　reciprocally　determine　the　position

in　time　of　each　other　and　thereby　constitute　a　whole。　If　this

subjective　community　is　to　rest　upon　an　objective　basis；　or　to　be

applied　to　substances　as　phenomena；　the　perception　of　one　substance

must　render　possible　the　perception　of　another；　and　conversely。　For

otherwise　succession；　which　is　always　found　in　perceptions　as

apprehensions；　would　be　predicated　of　external　objects；　and　their

representation　of　their　coexistence　be　thus　impossible。　But　this　is

a　reciprocal　influence；　that　is　to　say；　a　real　community

（commercium）　of　substances；　without　which　therefore　the　empirical

relation　of　coexistence　would　be　a　notion　beyond　the　reach　of　our

minds。　By　virtue　of　this　commercium；　phenomena；　in　so　far　as　they

are　apart　from；　and　nevertheless　in　connection　with　each　other；

constitute　a　compositum　reale。　Such　composita　are　possible　in　many

different　ways。　The　three　dynamical　relations　then；　from　which　all

others　spring；　are　those　of　inherence；　consequence；　and　composition。



　　These；　then；　are　the　three　analogies　of　experience。　They　are　nothing

more　than　principles　of　the　determination　of　the　existence　of

phenomena　in　time；　according　to　the　three　modi　of　this

determination；　to　wit；　the　relation　to　time　itself　as　a　quantity

（the　quantity　of　existence；　that　is；　duration）；　the　relation　in　time

as　a　series　or　succession；　finally；　the　relation　in　time　as　the

complex　of　all　existence　（simultaneity）。　This　unity　of　determination

in　regard　to　time　is　thoroughly　dynamical；　that　is　to　say；　time　is　not

considered　as　that　in　which　experience　determines　immediately　to　every

existence　its　position；　for　this　is　impossible；　inasmuch　as　absolute

time　is　not　an　object　of　perception；　by　means　of　which　phenomena　can

be　connected　with　each　other。　On　the　contrary；　the　rule　of　the

understanding；　through　which　alone　the　existence　of　phenomena　can

receive　synthetical　unity　as　regards　relations　of　time；　determines　for

every　phenomenon　its　position　in　time；　and　consequently　a　priori；

and　with　validity　for　all　and　every　time。

　　By　nature；　in　the　empirical　sense　of　the　word；　we　understand　the

totality　of　phenomena　connected；　in　respect　of　their　existence；

according　to　necessary　rules；　that　is；　laws。　There　are　therefore

certain　laws　（which　are　moreover　a　priori）　which　make　nature　possible；

and　all　empirical　laws　can　exist　only　by　means　of　experience；　and　by

virtue　of　those　primitive　laws　through　which　experience　itself　becomes

possible。　The　purpose　of　the　analogies　is　therefore　to　represent　to　us

the　unity　of　nature　in　the　connection　of　all　phenomena　under　certain

exponents；　the　only　business　of　which　is　to　express　the　relation　of

time　（in　so　far　as　it　contains　all　existence　in　itself）　to　the　unity

of　apperception；　which　can　exist　in　synthesis　only　according　to　rules。

The　combined　expression　of　all　is　this：　〃All　phenomena　exist　in　one

nature；　and　must　so　exist；　inasmuch　as　without　this　a　priori　unity；　no

unity　of　experience；　and　consequently　no　determination　of　objects　in

experience；　is　possible。〃

　　As　regards　the　mode　of　proof　which　we　have　employed　in　treating　of

these　transcendental　laws　of　nature；　and　the　peculiar　character　of

we　must　make　one　remark；　which　will　at　the　same　time　be　important　as　a

guide　in　every　other　attempt　to　demonstrate　the　truth　of

intellectual　and　likewise　synthetical　propositions　a　priori。　Had　we

endeavoured　to　prove　these　analogies　dogmatically；　that　is；　from

conceptions；　that　is　to　say；　had　we　employed　this　method　in　attempting

to　show　that　everything　which　exists；　exists　only　in　that　which　is

permanent…　that　every　thing　or　event　presupposes　the　existence　of

something　in　a　preceding　state；　upon　which　it　follows　in　conformity

with　a　rule…　lastly；　that　in　the　manifold；　which　is　coexistent；　the

states　coexist　in　connection　with　each　other　according　to　a　rule…

all　our　labour　would　have　been　utterly　in　vain。　For　more　conceptions

of　things；　analyse　them　as　we　may；　cannot　enable　us　to　conclude　from

the　existence　of　one　object　to　the　existence　of　another。　What　other

course　was　left　for　us　to　pursue？　This　only；　to　demonstrate　the

possibility　of　experience　as　a　cognition　in　which　at　last　all

objects　must　be　capable　of　being　presented　to　us；　if　the

representation　of　them　is　to　possess　any　objective　reality。　Now　in

this　third；　this　mediating　term；　the　essential　form　of　which

consists　in　the　synthetical　unity　of　the　apperception　of　all

phenomena；　we　found　a　priori　conditions　of　the　universal　and　necessary

determination　as　to　time　of　all　existences　in　the　world　of

phenomena；　without　which　the　empirical　determination　thereof　as　to

time　would　itself　be　impossible；　and　we　also　discovered　rules　of

synthetical　unity　a　priori；　by　means　of　which　we　could　anticipate

experience。　For　want　of　this　method；　and　from　the　fancy　that　it　was

possible　to　discover　a　dogmatical　proof　of　the　synthetical

propositions　which　are　requisite　in　the　empirical　employment　of　the

understanding；　has　it　happened　that　a　proof　of　the　principle　of

sufficient　reason　has　been　so　often　attempted；　and　always　in　vain。　The

other　two　analogies　nobody　has　ever　thought　of；　although　they　have

always　been　silently　employed　by　the　mind；*　because　the　guiding　thread

furnished　by　the　categories　was　wanting；　the　guide　which　alone　can

enable　us　to　discover　every　hiatus；　both　in　the　system　of

conceptions　and　of　principles。



　　*The　unity　of　the　universe；　in　which　all　phenomena　to　be

connected；　is　evidently　a　mere　consequence　of　the　admitted　principle

of　the　community　of　all　substances　which　are　coexistent。　For　were

substances　isolated；　they　could　not　as　parts　constitute　a　whole；　and

were　their　connection　（reciprocal　action　of　the　manifold）　not

necessary　from　the　very　fact　of　coexistence；　we　could　not　conclude

from　the　fact　of　the　latter　as　a　merely　ideal　relation　to　the　former

as　a　real　one。　We　have；　however；　shown　in　its　place　that　community

is　the　proper　ground　of　the　possibility　of　an　empirical　cognition　of

coexistence；　and　that　we　may　therefore　properly　reason　from　the　latter

to　the　former　as　its　condition。



　　　　　　　　　　　4。　THE　POSTULATES　OF　EMPIRICAL　THOUGHT。



　　1。　That　which　agrees　with　the　formal　conditions　（intuition　and

conception）　of　experience；　is　possible。

　　2。　That　which　coheres　with　the　material　conditions　of　experience

（sensation）；　is　real。

　　3。　That　whose　coherence　with　the　real　is　determined　according　to

universal　conditions　of　experience　is　（exists）　necessary。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Explanation。



　　The　categories　of　modality　possess　this　peculiarity；　that　they　do

not　in　the　least　determine　the　object；　or　enlarge　the　conception　to

which　they　are　annexed　as　predicates；　but　only　express　its　relation　to

the　faculty　of　cognition。　Though　my　conception　of　a　thing　is　in　itself

complete；　I　am　still　entitled　to　ask　whether　the　object　of　it　is

merely　possible；　or　whether　it　is　also　real；　or；　if　the　latter；

whether　it　is　also　necessary。　But　hereby　the　object　itself　is　not　more

definitely　determined　in　thought；　but　the　question　is　only　in　what

relation　it；　including　all　its　determinations；　stands　to　the

understanding　and　its　employment　in　experience；　to　the　empirical

faculty　of　judgement；　and　to　the　reason　of　its　application　to

experience。

　　For　this　very　reason；　too；　the　categories　of　modality　are　nothing

more　than　explanations　of　the　conceptions　of　possibility；　reality；　and

necessity；　as　employed　in　experience；　and　at　the　same　time；

restrictions　of　all　the　categories　to　empirical　use　alone；　not

authorizing　the　transcendental　employment　of　them。　For　if　they　are

to　have　something　more　than　a　merely　logical　significance；　and　to　be

something　more　than　a　mere　analytical　expression　of　the　form　of

thought；　and　to　have　a　relation　to　things　and　their　possibility；

reality；　or　necessity；　they　must　concern　possible　experience　and　its

synthetical　unity；　in　which　alone　objects　of　cognition　can　be　given。

　　The　postulate　of　the　possibility　of　things　requires　also；　that　the

conception　of　the　things　agree　with　the　formal　conditions　of　our

experience　in　general。　But　this；　that　is　to　say；　the　objective　form　of

experience；　contains　all　the　kinds　of　synthesis　which　are　requisite

for　the　cognition　of　objects。　A　conception　which　contains　a

synthesis　must　be　regarded　as　empty　and；　without　reference　to　an

object；　if　its　synthesis　does　not　belong　to　experience…　either　as

borrowed　from　it；　and　in　this　case　it　is　called　an　empirical

conception；　or　such　as　is　the　ground　and　a　priori　condition　of

experience　（its　form）；　and　in　this　case　it　is　a　pure　conception；　a

conception　which　nevertheless　belongs　to　experience；　inasmuch　as　its

object　can　be　found　in　this　alone。　For　where　shall　we　find　the

criterion　or　character　of　the　possibility　of　an　object　which　is

cogitated　by　means　of　an　a　priori　synthetical　conception；　if　not　in