the critique of pure reason- 第49部分

pure　understanding；　whether　constitutive　a　priori　（as　the　mathematical

principles）；　or　merely　regulative　（as　the　dynamical）；　contain

nothing　but　the　pure　schema；　as　it　were；　of　possible　experience。　For

experience　possesses　its　unity　from　the　synthetical　unity　which　the

understanding；　originally　and　from　itself；　imparts　to　the　synthesis　of

the　imagination　in　relation　to　apperception；　and　in　a　priori

relation　to　and　agreement　with　which　phenomena；　as　data　for　a　possible

cognition；　must　stand。　But　although　these　rules　of　the　understanding

are　not　only　a　priori　true；　but　the　very　source　of　all　truth；　that　is；

of　the　accordance　of　our　cognition　with　objects；　and　on　this　ground；

that　they　contain　the　basis　of　the　possibility　of　experience；　as　the

ensemble　of　all　cognition；　it　seems　to　us　not　enough　to　propound

what　is　true…　we　desire　also　to　be　told　what　we　want　to　know。　If；

then；　we　learn　nothing　more　by　this　critical　examination　than　what

we　should　have　practised　in　the　merely　empirical　use　of　the

understanding；　without　any　such　subtle　inquiry；　the　presumption　is

that　the　advantage　we　reap　from　it　is　not　worth　the　labour　bestowed

upon　it。　It　may　certainly　be　answered　that　no　rash　curiosity　is　more

prejudicial　to　the　enlargement　of　our　knowledge　than　that　which　must

know　beforehand　the　utility　of　this　or　that　piece　of　information　which

we　seek；　before　we　have　entered　on　the　needful　investigations；　and

before　one　could　form　the　least　conception　of　its　utility；　even　though

it　were　placed　before　our　eyes。　But　there　is　one　advantage　in　such

transcendental　inquiries　which　can　be　made　comprehensible　to　the

dullest　and　most　reluctant　learner…　this；　namely；　that　the

understanding　which　is　occupied　merely　with　empirical　exercise；　and

does　not　reflect　on　the　sources　of　its　own　cognition；　may　exercise　its

functions　very　well　and　very　successfully；　but　is　quite　unable　to　do

one　thing；　and　that　of　very　great　importance；　to　determine；　namely；

the　bounds　that　limit　its　employment；　and　to　know　what　lies　within

or　without　its　own　sphere。　This　purpose　can　be　obtained　only　by　such

profound　investigations　as　we　have　instituted。　But　if　it　cannot

distinguish　whether　certain　questions　lie　within　its　horizon　or　not；

it　can　never　be　sure　either　as　to　its　claims　or　possessions；　but

must　lay　its　account　with　many　humiliating　corrections；　when　it

transgresses；　as　it　unavoidably　will；　the　limits　of　its　own　territory；

and　loses　itself　in　fanciful　opinions　and　blinding　illusions。

　　That　the　understanding；　therefore；　cannot　make　of　its　a　priori

principles；　or　even　of　its　conceptions；　other　than　an　empirical　use；

is　a　proposition　which　leads　to　the　most　important　results。　A

transcendental　use　is　made　of　a　conception　in　a　fundamental

proposition　or　principle；　when　it　is　referred　to　things　in　general　and

considered　as　things　in　themselves；　an　empirical　use；　when　it　is

referred　merely　to　phenomena；　that　is；　to　objects　of　a　possible

experience。　That　the　latter　use　of　a　conception　is　the　only　admissible

one　is　evident　from　the　reasons　following。　For　every　conception　are

requisite；　firstly；　the　logical　form　of　a　conception　（of　thought）

general；　and；　secondly；　the　possibility　of　presenting　to　this　an

object　to　which　it　may　apply。　Failing　this　latter；　it　has　no　sense；

and　utterly　void　of　content；　although　it　may　contain　the　logical

function　for　constructing　a　conception　from　certain　data。　Now；

object　cannot　be　given　to　a　conception　otherwise　than　by　intuition；

and；　even　if　a　pure　intuition　antecedent　to　the　object　is　a　priori

possible；　this　pure　intuition　can　itself　obtain　objective　validity

only　from　empirical　intuition；　of　which　it　is　itself　but　the　form。　All

conceptions；　therefore；　and　with　them　all　principles；　however　high　the

degree　of　their　a　priori　possibility；　relate　to　empirical

intuitions；　that　is；　to　data　towards　a　possible　experience。　Without

this　they　possess　no　objective　validity；　but　are　mere　play　of

imagination　or　of　understanding　with　images　or　notions。　Let　us　take；

for　example；　the　conceptions　of　mathematics；　and　first　in　its　pure

intuitions。　〃Space　has　three　dimensions〃…　〃Between　two　points　there

can　be　only　one　straight　line；〃　etc。　Although　all　these　principles；

and　the　representation　of　the　object　with　which　this　science

occupies　itself；　are　generated　in　the　mind　entirely　a　priori；　they

would　nevertheless　have　no　significance　if　we　were　not　always　able

to　exhibit　their　significance　in　and　by　means　of　phenomena

（empirical　objects）。　Hence　it　is　requisite　that　an　abstract　conception

be　made　sensuous；　that　is；　that　an　object　corresponding　to　it　in

intuition　be　forthcoming；　otherwise　the　conception　remains；　as　we　say；

without　sense；　that　is；　without　meaning。　Mathematics　fulfils　this

requirement　by　the　construction　of　the　figure；　which　is　a　phenomenon

evident　to　the　senses。　The　same　science　finds　support　and　significance

in　number；　this　in　its　turn　finds　it　in　the　fingers；　or　in　counters；

or　in　lines　and　points。　The　conception　itself　is　always　produced　a

priori；　together　with　the　synthetical　principles　or　formulas　from　such

conceptions；　but　the　proper　employment　of　them；　and　their

application　to　objects；　can　exist　nowhere　but　in　experience；　the

possibility　of　which；　as　regards　its　form；　they　contain　a　priori。

　　That　this　is　also　the　case　with　all　of　the　categories　and　the

principles　based　upon　them　is　evident　from　the　fact　that　we　cannot

render　intelligible　the　possibility　of　an　object　corresponding　to　them

without　having　recourse　to　the　conditions　of　sensibility；

consequently；　to　the　form　of　phenomena；　to　which；　as　their　only　proper

objects；　their　use　must　therefore　be　confined；　inasmuch　as；　if　this

condition　is　removed；　all　significance；　that　is；　all　relation　to　an

object；　disappears；　and　no　example　can　be　found　to　make　it

comprehensible　what　sort　of　things　we　ought　to　think　under　such

conceptions。

　　The　conception　of　quantity　cannot　be　explained　except　by　saying　that

it　is　the　determination　of　a　thing　whereby　it　can　be　cogitated　how

many　times　one　is　placed　in　it。　But　this　〃how　many　times〃　is　based

upon　successive　repetition；　consequently　upon　time　and　the　synthesis

of　the　homogeneous　therein。　Reality；　in　contradistinction　to　negation；

can　be　explained　only　by　cogitating　a　time　which　is　either　filled

therewith　or　is　void。　If　I　leave　out　the　notion　of　permanence　（which

is　existence　in　all　time）；　there　remains　in　the　conception　of

substance　nothing　but　the　logical　notion　of　subject；　a　notion　of　which

I　endeavour　to　realize　by　representing　to　myself　something　that　can

exist　only　as　a　subject。　But　not　only　am　I　perfectly　ignorant　of　any

conditions　under　which　this　logical　prerogative　can　belong　to　a　thing；

I　can　make　nothing　out　of　the　notion；　and　draw　no　inference　from　it；

because　no　object　to　which　to　apply　the　conception　is　determined；

and　we　consequently　do　not　know　whether　it　has　any　meaning　at　all。

In　like　manner；　if　I　leave　out　the　notion　of　time；　in　which

something　follows　upon　some　other　thing　in　conformity　with　a　rule；　I

can　find　nothing　in　the　pure　category；　except　that　there　is　a

something　of　such　a　sort　that　from　it　a　conclusion　may　be　drawn　as

to　the　existence　of　some　other　thing。　But　in　this　case　it　would　not

only　be　impossible　to　distinguish　between　a　cause　and　an　effect；

but；　as　this　power　to　draw　conclusions　requires　conditions　of　which

I　am　quite　ignorant；　the　conception　is　not　determined　as　to　the　mode

in　which　it　ought　to　apply　to　an　object。　The　so…called　principle：

〃Everything　that　is　contingent　has　a　cause；〃　comes　with　a　gravity

and　self…assumed　authority　that　seems　to　require　no　support　from

without。　But；　I　ask；　what　is　meant　by　contingent？　The　answer　is　that

the　non…existence　of　which　is　possible。　But　I　should　like　very　well　to

know　by　what　means　this　possibility　of　non…existence　is　to　be

cognized；　if　we　do　not　represent　to　ourselves　a　succession　in　the

series　of　phenomena；　and　in　this　succession　an　existence　which　follows

a　non…existence；　or　conversely；　consequently；　change。　For　to　say；　that

the　non…existence　of　a　thing　is　not　self…contradictory　is　a　lame

appeal　to　a　logical　condition；　which　is　no　doubt　a　necessary　condition

of　the　existence　of　the　conception；　but　is　far　from　being　sufficient

for　the　real　objective　possibility　of　non…existence。　I　can

annihilate　in　thought　every　existing　substance　without

self…contradiction；　but　I　cannot　infer　from　this　their　objective

contingency　in　existence；　that　is　to　say；　the　possibility　of　their

non…existence　in　itself。　As　regards　the　category　of　community；　it

may　easily　be　inferred　that；　as　the　pure　categories　of　substance　and

causality　are　incapable　of　a　definition　and　explanation　sufficient

to　determine　their　object　without　the　aid　of　intuition；　the　category

of　reciprocal　causality　in　the　relation　of　substances　to　each　other

（commercium）　is　just　as　little　susceptible　thereof。　Possibility；

existence；　and　necessity　nobody　has　ever　yet　been　able　to　explain

without　being　guilty　of　manifest　tautology；　when　the　definition　has

been　drawn　entirely　from　the　pure　understanding。　For　the

substitution　of　the　logical　possibility　of　the　conception…　the

condition　of　which　is　that　it　be　not　self…contradictory；　for　the

transcendental　possibility　of　things…　the　condition　of　which　is　that

there　be　an　object　corresponding　to　the　conception；　is　a　trick　which

can　only　deceive　the　inexperienced。*



　　*In　one　word；　to　none　of　these　conceptions　belongs　a　corresponding

object；　and　consequently　their　real　possibility　cannot　be

demonstrated；　if　we　take　away　sensuous　intuition…　the　only　intuition

which　we　possess…　and　there　then　remains　nothing　but　the　logical

possibility；　that　is；　the　fact　that　the　conception　or　thought　is

possible…　which；　however；　is　not　the　question；　what　we　want　to　know

being；　whether　it　relates　to　an　object　and　thus　possesses　any　meaning。



　　It　follows　incontestably；　th