the critique of pure reason- 第55部分

myself　solely　to　the　conception　of　a　thing　in　general；　I　can　make

abstraction　of　all　external　relations；　and　there　must　nevertheless

remain　a　conception　of　that　which　indicates　no　relation；　but　merely

internal　determinations。　Now　it　seems　to　follow　that　in　everything

（substance）　there　is　something　which　is　absolutely　internal　and

which　antecedes　all　external　determinations；　inasmuch　as　it　renders

them　possible；　and　that　therefore　this　substratum　is　something　which

does　not　contain　any　external　relations　and　is　consequently　simple

（for　corporeal　things　are　never　anything　but　relations；　at　least　of

their　parts　external　to　each　other）；　and；　inasmuch　as　we　know　of　no

other　absolutely　internal　determinations　than　those　of　the　internal

sense；　this　substratum　is　not　only　simple；　but　also；　analogously

with　our　internal　sense；　determined　through　representations；　that　is

to　say；　all　things　are　properly　monads；　or　simple　beings　endowed

with　the　power　of　representation。　Now　all　this　would　be　perfectly

correct；　if　the　conception　of　a　thing　were　the　only　necessary

condition　of　the　presentation　of　objects　of　external　intuition。　It　is；

on　the　contrary；　manifest　that　a　permanent　phenomenon　in　space

（impenetrable　extension）　can　contain　mere　relations；　and　nothing

that　is　absolutely　internal；　and　yet　be　the　primary　substratum　of

all　external　perception。　By　mere　conceptions　I　cannot　think　anything

external；　without；　at　the　same　time；　thinking　something　internal；

for　the　reason　that　conceptions　of　relations　presuppose　given

things；　and　without　these　are　impossible。　But；　as　an　intuition　there

is　something　（that　is；　space；　which；　with　all　it　contains；　consists　of

purely　formal；　or；　indeed；　real　relations）　which　is　not　found　in　the

mere　conception　of　a　thing　in　general；　and　this　presents　to　us　the

substratum　which　could　not　be　cognized　through　conceptions　alone；　I

cannot　say：　because　a　thing　cannot　be　represented　by　mere

conceptions　without　something　absolutely　internal；　there　is　also；　in

the　things　themselves　which　are　contained　under　these　conceptions；　and

in　their　intuition　nothing　external　to　which　something　absolutely

internal　does　not　serve　as　the　foundation。　For；　when　we　have　made

abstraction　of　all　the　conditions　of　intuition；　there　certainly

remains　in　the　mere　conception　nothing　but　the　internal　in　general；

through　which　alone　the　external　is　possible。　But　this　necessity；

which　is　grounded　upon　abstraction　alone；　does　not　obtain　in　the

case　of　things　themselves；　in　so　far　as　they　are　given　in　intuition

with　such　determinations　as　express　mere　relations；　without　having

anything　internal　as　their　foundation；　for　they　are　not　things　of　a

thing　of　which　we　can　neither　for　they　are　not　things　in　themselves；

but　only　phenomena。　What　we　cognize　in　matter　is　nothing　but　relations

（what　we　call　its　internal　determinations　are　but　comparatively

internal）。　But　there　are　some　self…subsistent　and　permanent；　through

which　a　determined　object　is　given。　That　I；　when　abstraction　is　made

of　these　relations；　have　nothing　more　to　think；　does　not　destroy　the

conception　of　a　thing　as　phenomenon；　nor　the　conception　of　an　object

in　abstracto；　but　it　does　away　with　the　possibility　of　an　object

that　is　determinable　according　to　mere　conceptions；　that　is；　of　a

noumenon。　It　is　certainly　startling　to　hear　that　a　thing　consists

solely　of　relations；　but　this　thing　is　simply　a　phenomenon；　and　cannot

be　cogitated　by　means　of　the　mere　categories：　it　does　itself　consist

in　the　mere　relation　of　something　in　general　to　the　senses。　In　the

same　way；　we　cannot　cogitate　relations　of　things　in　abstracto；　if　we

commence　with　conceptions　alone；　in　any　other　manner　than　that　one

is　the　cause　of　determinations　in　the　other；　for　that　is　itself　the

conception　of　the　understanding　or　category　of　relation。　But；　as　in

this　case　we　make　abstraction　of　all　intuition；　we　lose　altogether　the

mode　in　which　the　manifold　determines　to　each　of　its　parts　its

place；　that　is；　the　form　of　sensibility　（space）；　and　yet　this　mode

antecedes　all　empirical　causality。



　　*If　any　one　wishes　here　to　have　recourse　to　the　usual　subterfuge；

and　to　say；　that　at　least　realitates　noumena　cannot　be　in　opposition

to　each　other；　it　will　be　requisite　for　him　to　adduce　an　example　of

this　pure　and　non…sensuous　reality；　that　it　may　be　understood

whether　the　notion　represents　something　or　nothing。　But　an　example

cannot　be　found　except　in　experience；　which　never　presents　to　us

anything　more　than　phenomena；　and　thus　the　proposition　means　nothing

more　than　that　the　conception　which　contains　only　affirmatives　does

not　contain　anything　negative…　a　proposition　nobody　ever　doubted。



　　If　by　intelligible　objects　we　understand　things　which　can　be　thought

by　means　of　the　pure　categories；　without　the　need　of　the　schemata　of

sensibility；　such　objects　are　impossible。　For　the　condition　of　the

objective　use　of　all　our　conceptions　of　understanding　is　the　mode　of

our　sensuous　intuition；　whereby　objects　are　given；　and；　if　we　make

abstraction　of　the　latter；　the　former　can　have　no　relation　to　an

object。　And　even　if　we　should　suppose　a　different　kind　of　intuition

from　our　own；　still　our　functions　of　thought　would　have　no　use　or

signification　in　respect　thereof。　But　if　we　understand　by　the　term；

objects　of　a　non…sensuous　intuition；　in　respect　of　which　our

categories　are　not　valid；　and　of　which　we　can　accordingly　have　no

knowledge　（neither　intuition　nor　conception）；　in　this　merely

negative　sense　noumena　must　be　admitted。　For　this　is　no　more　than

saying　that　our　mode　of　intuition　is　not　applicable　to　all　things；　but

only　to　objects　of　our　senses；　that　consequently　its　objective

validity　is　limited；　and　that　room　is　therefore　left　for　another

kind　of　intuition；　and　thus　also　for　things　that　may　be　objects　of　it。

But　in　this　sense　the　conception　of　a　noumenon　is　problematical；

that　is　to　say；　it　is　the　notion　of　that　it　that　it　is　possible；　nor

that　it　is　impossible；　inasmuch　as　we　do　not　know　of　any　mode　of

intuition　besides　the　sensuous；　or　of　any　other　sort　of　conceptions

than　the　categories…　a　mode　of　intuition　and　a　kind　of　conception

neither　of　which　is　applicable　to　a　non…sensuous　object。　We　are　on

this　account　incompetent　to　extend　the　sphere　of　our　objects　of

thought　beyond　the　conditions　of　our　sensibility；　and　to　assume　the

existence　of　objects　of　pure　thought；　that　is；　of　noumena；　inasmuch　as

these　have　no　true　positive　signification。　For　it　must　be　confessed　of

the　categories　that　they　are　not　of　themselves　sufficient　for　the

cognition　of　things　in　themselves　and；　without　the　data　of

sensibility；　are　mere　subjective　forms　of　the　unity　of　the

understanding。　Thought　is　certainly　not　a　product　of　the　senses；　and

in　so　far　is　not　limited　by　them；　but　it　does　not　therefore　follow

that　it　may　be　employed　purely　and　without　the　intervention　of

sensibility；　for　it　would　then　be　without　reference　to　an　object。

And　we　cannot　call　a　noumenon　an　object　of　pure　thought；　for　the

representation　thereof　is　but　the　problematical　conception　of　an

object　for　a　perfectly　different　intuition　and　a　perfectly　different

understanding　from　ours；　both　of　which　are　consequently　themselves

problematical。　The　conception　of　a　noumenon　is　therefore　not　the

conception　of　an　object；　but　merely　a　problematical　conception

inseparably　connected　with　the　limitation　of　our　sensibility。　That

is　to　say；　this　conception　contains　the　answer　to　the　question：　〃Are

there　objects　quite　unconnected　with；　and　independent　of；　our

intuition？〃…　a　question　to　which　only　an　indeterminate　answer　can　be

given。　That　answer　is：　〃Inasmuch　as　sensuous　intuition　does　not

apply　to　all　things　without　distinction；　there　remains　room　for

other　and　different　objects。〃　The　existence　of　these　problematical

objects　is　therefore　not　absolutely　denied；　in　the　absence　of　a

determinate　conception　of　them；　but；　as　no　category　is　valid　in

respect　of　them；　neither　must　they　be　admitted　as　objects　for　our

understanding。

　　Understanding　accordingly　limits　sensibility；　without　at　the　same

time　enlarging　its　own　field。　While；　moreover；　it　forbids

sensibility　to　apply　its　forms　and　modes　to　things　in　themselves　and

restricts　it　to　the　sphere　of　phenomena；　it　cogitates　an　object　in

itself；　only；　however；　as　a　transcendental　object；　which　is　the

cause　of　a　phenomenon　（consequently　not　itself　a　phenomenon）；　and

which　cannot　be　thought　either　as　a　quantity　or　as　reality；　or　as

substance　（because　these　conceptions　always　require　sensuous　forms

in　which　to　determine　an　object）…　an　object；　therefore；　of　which　we

are　quite　unable　to　say　whether　it　can　be　met　with　in　ourselves　or　out

of　us；　whether　it　would　be　annihilated　together　with　sensibility；

or；　if　this　were　taken　away；　would　continue　to　exist。　If　we　wish　to

call　this　object　a　noumenon；　because　the　representation　of　it　is

non…sensuous；　we　are　at　liberty　to　do　so。　But　as　we　can　apply　to　it

none　of　the　conceptions　of　our　understanding；　the　representation　is

for　us　quite　void；　and　is　available　only　for　the　indication　of　the

limits　of　our　sensuous　intuition；　thereby　leaving　at　the　same　time

an　empty　space；　which　we　are　competent　to　fill　by　the　aid　neither　of

possible　experience；　nor　of　the　pure　understanding。

　　The　critique　of　the　pure　understanding；　accordingly；　does　not　permit

us　to　create　for　ourselves　a　new　field　of　objects　beyond　those　which

are　presented　to　us　as　phenomena；　and　to　stray　into　intelligible

worlds；　nay；　it　does　not　even　allow　us　to　endeavour　to　form　so　much　as

a　conception　of　them。　The　specious　error　which　leads　to　this…　and

which　is　a　perfectly　excusable　one…　lies　in　the　fact　that　the

employment　of　the　understanding；　contrary　to　its　proper　purpose　and

destination；　is　made　transcendental；　and　objects；　that　is；　possible

intuitions；　are　made　to　regulate　themselves　according　to

conceptions；　instead　of　the　conceptions　arrangi