the critique of pure reason- 第80部分

prior　to　all　experience。　But　the　phenomena；　corresponding　to　it；　are

not　given　as　things　in　themselves；　but　in　experience　alone。　For　they

are　mere　representations；　receiving　from　perceptions　alone

significance　and　relation　to　a　real　object；　under　the　condition　that

this　or　that　perception…　indicating　an　object…　is　in　complete

connection　with　all　others　in　accordance　with　the　rules　of　the　unity

of　experience。　Thus　we　can　say：　〃The　things　that　really　existed　in

past　time　are　given　in　the　transcendental　object　of　experience。〃　But

these　are　to　me　real　objects；　only　in　so　far　as　I　can　represent　to

my　own　mind；　that　a　regressive　series　of　possible　perceptions…

following　the　indications　of　history；　or　the　footsteps　of　cause　and

effect…　in　accordance　with　empirical　laws…　that；　in　one　word；　the

course　of　the　world　conducts　us　to　an　elapsed　series　of　time　as　the

condition　of　the　present　time。　This　series　in　past　time　is　represented

as　real；　not　in　itself；　but　only　in　connection　with　a　possible

experience。　Thus；　when　I　say　that　certain　events　occurred　in　past

time；　I　merely　assert　the　possibility　of　prolonging　the　chain　of

experience；　from　the　present　perception；　upwards　to　the　conditions

that　determine　it　according　to　time。

　　If　I　represent　to　myself　all　objects　existing　in　all　space　and　time；

I　do　not　thereby　place　these　in　space　and　time　prior　to　all

experience；　on　the　contrary；　such　a　representation　is　nothing　more

than　the　notion　of　a　possible　experience；　in　its　absolute

completeness。　In　experience　alone　are　those　objects；　which　are　nothing

but　representations；　given。　But；　when　I　say　they　existed　prior　to　my

experience；　this　means　only　that　I　must　begin　with　the　perception

present　to　me　and　follow　the　track　indicated　until　I　discover　them

in　some　part　or　region　of　experience。　The　cause　of　the　empirical

condition　of　this　progression…　and　consequently　at　what　member　therein

I　must　stop；　and　at　what　point　in　the　regress　I　am　to　find　this

member…　is　transcendental；　and　hence　necessarily　incognizable。　But

with　this　we　have　not　to　do；　our　concern　is　only　with　the　law　of

progression　in　experience；　in　which　objects；　that　is；　phenomena；　are

given。　It　is　a　matter　of　indifference；　whether　I　say；　〃I　may　in　the

progress　of　experience　discover　stars；　at　a　hundred　times　greater

distance　than　the　most　distant　of　those　now　visible；〃　or；　〃Stars　at

this　distance　may　be　met　in　space；　although　no　one　has；　or　ever　will

discover　them。〃　For；　if　they　are　given　as　things　in　themselves；

without　any　relation　to　possible　experience；　they　are　for　me

non…existent；　consequently；　are　not　objects；　for　they　are　not

contained　in　the　regressive　series　of　experience。　But；　if　these

phenomena　must　be　employed　in　the　construction　or　support　of　the

cosmological　idea　of　an　absolute　whole；　and　when　we　are　discussing　a

question　that　oversteps　the　limits　of　possible　experience；　the

proper　distinction　of　the　different　theories　of　the　reality　of

sensuous　objects　is　of　great　importance；　in　order　to　avoid　the

illusion　which　must　necessarily　arise　from　the　misinterpretation　of

our　empirical　conceptions。



　　　　SECTION　VII。　Critical　Solution　of　the　Cosmological　Problem。



　　The　antinomy　of　pure　reason　is　based　upon　the　following

dialectical　argument：　〃If　that　which　is　conditioned　is　given；　the

whole　series　of　its　conditions　is　also　given；　but　sensuous　objects　are

given　as　conditioned；　consequently。。。〃　This　syllogism；　the　major　of

which　seems　so　natural　and　evident；　introduces　as　many　cosmological

ideas　as　there　are　different　kinds　of　conditions　in　the　synthesis　of

phenomena；　in　so　far　as　these　conditions　constitute　a　series。　These

ideas　require　absolute　totality　in　the　series；　and　thus　place　reason

in　inextricable　embarrassment。　Before　proceeding　to　expose　the　fallacy

in　this　dialectical　argument；　it　will　be　necessary　to　have　a　correct

understanding　of　certain　conceptions　that　appear　in　it。

　　In　the　first　place；　the　following　proposition　is　evident；　and

indubitably　certain：　〃If　the　conditioned　is　given；　a　regress　in　the

series　of　all　its　conditions　is　thereby　imperatively　required。〃　For

the　very　conception　of　a　conditioned　is　a　conception　of　something

related　to　a　condition；　and；　if　this　condition　is　itself

conditioned；　to　another　condition…　and　so　on　through　all　the　members

of　the　series。　This　proposition　is；　therefore；　analytical　and　has

nothing　to　fear　from　transcendental　criticism。　It　is　a　logical

postulate　of　reason：　to　pursue；　as　far　as　possible；　the　connection

of　a　conception　with　its　conditions。

　　If；　in　the　second　place；　both　the　conditioned　and　the　condition

are　things　in　themselves；　and　if　the　former　is　given；　not　only　is

the　regress　to　the　latter　requisite；　but　the　latter　is　really　given

with　the　former。　Now；　as　this　is　true　of　all　the　members　of　the

series；　the　entire　series　of　conditions；　and　with　them　the

unconditioned；　is　at　the　same　time　given　in　the　very　fact　of　the

conditioned；　the　existence　of　which　is　possible　only　in　and　through

that　series；　being　given。　In　this　case；　the　synthesis　of　the

conditioned　with　its　condition；　is　a　synthesis　of　the　understanding

merely；　which　represents　things　as　they　are；　without　regarding　whether

and　how　we　can　cognize　them。　But　if　I　have　to　do　with　phenomena；

which；　in　their　character　of　mere　representations；　are　not　given；　if　I

do　not　attain　to　a　cognition　of　them　（in　other　words；　to　themselves；

for　they　are　nothing　more　than　empirical　cognitions）；　I　am　not

entitled　to　say：　〃If　the　conditioned　is　given；　all　its　conditions

（as　phenomena）　are　also　given。〃　I　cannot；　therefore；　from　the　fact

of　a　conditioned　being　given；　infer　the　absolute　totality　of　the

series　of　its　conditions。　For　phenomena　are　nothing　but　an　empirical

synthesis　in　apprehension　or　perception；　and　are　therefore　given

only　in　it。　Now；　in　speaking　of　phenomena　it　does　not　follow　that；

if　the　conditioned　is　given；　the　synthesis　which　constitutes　its

empirical　condition　is　also　thereby　given　and　presupposed；　such　a

synthesis　can　be　established　only　by　an　actual　regress　in　the　series

of　conditions。　But　we　are　entitled　to　say　in　this　case　that　a

regress　to　the　conditions　of　a　conditioned；　in　other　words；　that　a

continuous　empirical　synthesis　is　enjoined；　that；　if　the　conditions

are　not　given；　they　are　at　least　required；　and　that　we　are　certain

to　discover　the　conditions　in　this　regress。

　　We　can　now　see　that　the　major；　in　the　above　cosmological

syllogism；　takes　the　conditioned　in　the　transcendental　signification

which　it　has　in　the　pure　category；　while　the　minor　speaks　of　it　in　the

empirical　signification　which　it　has　in　the　category　as　applied　to

phenomena。　There　is；　therefore；　a　dialectical　fallacy　in　the

syllogism…　a　sophisma　figurae　dictionis。　But　this　fallacy　is　not　a

consciously　devised　one；　but　a　perfectly　natural　illusion　of　the

common　reason　of　man。　For；　when　a　thing　is　given　as　conditioned；　we

presuppose　in　the　major　its　conditions　and　their　series；

unperceived；　as　it　were；　and　unseen；　because　this　is　nothing　more　than

the　logical　requirement　of　complete　and　satisfactory　premisses　for　a

given　conclusion。　In　this　case；　time　is　altogether　left　out　in　the

connection　of　the　conditioned　with　the　condition；　they　are　supposed　to

be　given　in　themselves；　and　contemporaneously。　It　is；　moreover；　just

as　natural　to　regard　phenomena　（in　the　minor）　as　things　in

themselves　and　as　objects　presented　to　the　pure　understanding；　as　in

the　major；　in　which　complete　abstraction　was　made　of　all　conditions　of

intuition。　But　it　is　under　these　conditions　alone　that　objects　are

given。　Now　we　overlooked　a　remarkable　distinction　between　the

conceptions。　The　synthesis　of　the　conditioned　with　its　condition；

and　the　complete　series　of　the　latter　（in　the　major）　are　not　limited

by　time；　and　do　not　contain　the　conception　of　succession。　On　the

contrary；　the　empirical　synthesis　and　the　series　of　conditions　in

the　phenomenal　world…　subsumed　in　the　minor…　are　necessarily

successive　and　given　in　time　alone。　It　follows　that　I　cannot

presuppose　in　the　minor；　as　I　did　in　the　major；　the　absolute

totality　of　the　synthesis　and　of　the　series　therein　represented；　for

in　the　major　all　the　members　of　the　series　are　given　as　things　in

themselves…　without　any　limitations　or　conditions　of　time；　while　in

the　minor　they　are　possible　only　in　and　through　a　successive

regress；　which　cannot　exist；　except　it　be　actually　carried　into

execution　in　the　world　of　phenomena。

　　After　this　proof　of　the　viciousness　of　the　argument　commonly

employed　in　maintaining　cosmological　assertions；　both　parties　may

now　be　justly　dismissed；　as　advancing　claims　without　grounds　or　title。

But　the　process　has　not　been　ended　by　convincing　them　that　one　or　both

were　in　the　wrong　and　had　maintained　an　assertion　which　was　without

valid　grounds　of　proof。　Nothing　seems　to　be　clearer　than　that；　if

one　maintains：　〃The　world　has　a　beginning；〃　and　another：　〃The　world

has　no　beginning；〃　one　of　the　two　must　be　right。　But　it　is　likewise

clear　that；　if　the　evidence　on　both　sides　is　equal；　it　is　impossible

to　discover　on　what　side　the　truth　lies；　and　the　controversy

continues；　although　the　parties　have　been　recommended　to　peace

before　the　tribunal　of　reason。　There　remains；　then；　no　other　means

of　settling　the　question　than　to　convince　the　parties；　who　refute　each

other　with　such　conclusiveness　and　ability；　that　they　are　disputing

about　nothing；　and　that　a　transcendental　illusion　has　been　mocking

them　with　visions　of　reality　where　there　is　none。　The　mode　of

adjusting　a　dispute　which　cannot　be　decided　upon　its　own　merits；　we

shall　now　proceed　to　lay　before　our　readers。



　　Zeno　of　Elea；　a　subtle　dialectician；　was　severely　reprimanded　by

Plato　as　a　sophist；　who；　merely　from　the　base　motive　of　exhibiting　his

skill　in　discussion；　maintained　and　subverted　the　same　proposition

by　arguments　as　powerful　and　convincing　on　the　one　side