the critique of pure reason- 第27部分

be　quite　void；　null；　and　without　significance。　Phenomena　would

nevertheless　continue　to　present　objects　to　our　intuition；　for　mere

intuition　　does　not　in　any　respect　stand　in　need　of　the　functions　of

thought。

　　If　we　thought　to　free　ourselves　from　the　labour　of　these

investigations　by　saying：　〃Experience　is　constantly　offering　us

examples　of　the　relation　of　cause　and　effect　in　phenomena；　and

presents　us　with　abundant　opportunity　of　abstracting　the　conception　of

cause；　and　so　at　the　same　time　of　corroborating　the　objective　validity

of　this　conception〃；　we　should　in　this　case　be　overlooking　the　fact；

that　the　conception　of　cause　cannot　arise　in　this　way　at　all；　that；　on

the　contrary；　it　must　either　have　an　a　priori　basis　in　the；

understanding；　or　be　rejected　as　a　mere　chimera。　For　this　conception

demands　that　something；　A；　should　be　of　such　a　nature　that　something

else；　B；　should　follow　from　it　necessarily；　and　according　to　an

absolutely　universal　law。　We　may　certainly　collect　from　phenomena　a

law；　according　to　which　this　or　that　usually　happens；　but　the

element　of　necessity　is　not　to　be　found　in　it。　Hence　it　is　evident

that　to　the　synthesis　of　cause　and　effect　belongs　a　dignity；　which

is　utterly　wanting　in　any　empirical　synthesis；　for　it　is　no　mere

mechanical　synthesis；　by　means　of　addition；　but　a　dynamical　one；

that　is　to　say；　the　effect　is　not　to　be　cogitated　as　merely　annexed　to

the　cause；　but　as　posited　by　and　through　the　cause；　and　resulting　from

it。　The　strict　universality　of　this　law　never　can　be　a

characteristic　of　empirical　laws；　which　obtain　through　induction

only　a　comparative　universality；　that　is；　an　extended　range　of

practical　application。　But　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding

would　entirely　lose　all　their　peculiar　character；　if　we　treated　them

merely　as　the　productions　of　experience。



　　　　　Transition　to　the　Transcendental　Deduction　of　the

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Categories。　SS　10



　　There　are　only　two　possible　ways　in　which　synthetical　representation

and　its　objects　can　coincide　with　and　relate　necessarily　to　each

other；　and；　as　it　were；　meet　together。　Either　the　object　alone　makes

the　representation　possible；　or　the　representation　alone　makes　the

object　possible。　In　the　former　case；　the　relation　between　them　is　only

empirical；　and　an　a　priori　representation　is　impossible。　And　this　is

the　case　with　phenomena；　as　regards　that　in　them　which　is　referable　to

mere　sensation。　In　the　latter　case…　although　representation　alone　（for

of　its　causality；　by　means　of　the　will；　we　do　not　here　speak）　does　not

produce　the　object　as　to　its　existence；　it　must　nevertheless　be　a

priori　determinative　in　regard　to　the　object；　if　it　is　only　by　means

of　the　representation　that　we　can　cognize　anything　as　an　object。　Now

there　are　only　two　conditions　of　the　possibility　of　a　cognition　of

objects；　firstly；　intuition；　by　means　of　which　the　object；　though　only

as　phenomenon；　is　given；　secondly；　conception；　by　means　of　which　the

object　which　corresponds　to　this　intuition　is　thought。　But　it　is

evident　from　what　has　been　said　on　aesthetic　that　the　first　condition；

under　which　alone　objects　can　be　intuited；　must　in　fact　exist；　as　a

formal　basis　for　them；　a　priori　in　the　mind。　With　this　formal

condition　of　sensibility；　therefore；　all　phenomena　necessarily

correspond；　because　it　is　only　through　it　that　they　can　be　phenomena

at　all；　that　is；　can　be　empirically　intuited　and　given。　Now　the

question　is　whether　there　do　not　exist；　a　priori　in　the　mind；

conceptions　of　understanding　also；　as　conditions　under　which　alone

something；　if　not　intuited；　is　yet　thought　as　object。　If　this　question

be　answered　in　the　affirmative；　it　follows　that　all　empirical

cognition　of　objects　is　necessarily　conformable　to　such　conceptions；

since；　if　they　are　not　presupposed；　it　is　impossible　that　anything　can

be　an　object　of　experience。　Now　all　experience　contains；　besides　the

intuition　of　the　senses　through　which　an　object　is　given；　a　conception

also　of　an　object　that　is　given　in　intuition。　Accordingly；　conceptions

of　objects　in　general　must　lie　as　a　priori　conditions　at　the

foundation　of　all　empirical　cognition；　and　consequently；　the　objective

validity　of　the　categories；　as　a　priori　conceptions；　will　rest　upon

this；　that　experience　（as　far　as　regards　the　form　of　thought）　is

possible　only　by　their　means。　For　in　that　case　they　apply

necessarily　and　a　priori　to　objects　of　experience；　because　only

through　them　can　an　object　of　experience　be　thought。

　　The　whole　aim　of　the　transcendental　deduction　of　all　a　priori

conceptions　is　to　show　that　these　conceptions　are　a　priori

conditions　of　the　possibility　of　all　experience。　Conceptions　which

afford　us　the　objective　foundation　of　the　possibility　of　experience

are　for　that　very　reason　necessary。　But　the　analysis　of　the

experiences　in　which　they　are　met　with　is　not　deduction；　but　only　an

illustration　of　them；　because　from　experience　they　could　never

derive　the　attribute　of　necessity。　Without　their　original

applicability　and　relation　to　all　possible　experience；　in　which　all

objects　of　cognition　present　themselves；　the　relation　of　the

categories　to　objects；　of　whatever　nature；　would　be　quite

incomprehensible。

　　The　celebrated　Locke；　for　want　of　due　reflection　on　these　points；

and　because　he　met　with　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding　in

experience；　sought　also　to　deduce　them　from　experience；　and　yet

proceeded　so　inconsequently　as　to　attempt；　with　their　aid；　to　arrive

it　cognitions　which　lie　far　beyond　the　limits　of　all　experience。　David

Hume　perceived　that；　to　render　this　possible；　it　was　necessary　that

the　conceptions　should　have　an　a　priori　origin。　But　as　he　could　not

explain　how　it　was　possible　that　conceptions　which　are　not　connected

with　each　other　in　the　understanding　must　nevertheless　be　thought　as

necessarily　connected　in　the　object…　and　it　never　occurred　to　him　that

the　understanding　itself　might；　perhaps；　by　means　of　these

conceptions；　be　the　author　of　the　experience　in　which　its　objects　were

presented　to　it…　he　was　forced　to　drive　these　conceptions　from

experience；　that　is；　from　a　subjective　necessity　arising　from　repeated

association　of　experiences　erroneously　considered　to　be　objective…

in　one　word；　from　habit。　But　he　proceeded　with　perfect　consequence　and

declared　it　to　be　impossible；　with　such　conceptions　and　the　principles

arising　from　them；　to　overstep　the　limits　of　experience。　The　empirical

derivation；　however；　which　both　of　these　philosophers　attributed　to

these　conceptions；　cannot　possibly　be　reconciled　with　the　fact　that　we

do　possess　scientific　a　priori　cognitions；　namely；　those　of　pure

mathematics　and　general　physics。

　　The　former　of　these　two　celebrated　men　opened　a　wide　door　to

extravagance…　（for　if　reason　has　once　undoubted　right　on　its　side；

it　will　not　allow　itself　to　be　confined　to　set　limits；　by　vague

recommendations　of　moderation）；　the　latter　gave　himself　up　entirely　to

scepticism…　a　natural　consequence；　after　having　discovered；　as　he

thought；　that　the　faculty　of　cognition　was　not　trustworthy。　We　now

intend　to　make　a　trial　whether　it　be　not　possible　safely　to　conduct

reason　between　these　two　rocks；　to　assign　her　determinate　limits；

and　yet　leave　open　for　her　the　entire　sphere　of　her　legitimate

activity。

　　I　shall　merely　premise　an　explanation　of　what　the　categories　are。

They　are　conceptions　of　an　object　in　general；　by　means　of　which　its

intuition　is　contemplated　as　determined　in　relation　to　one　of　the

logical　functions　of　judgement。　The　following　will　make　this　plain。

The　function　of　the　categorical　judgement　is　that　of　the　relation　of

subject　to　predicate；　for　example；　in　the　proposition：　〃All　bodies　are

divisible。〃　But　in　regard　to　the　merely　logical　use　of　the

understanding；　it　still　remains　undetermined　to　which　Of　these　two

conceptions　belongs　the　function　Of　subject　and　to　which　that　of

predicate。　For　we　could　also　say：　〃Some　divisible　is　a　body。〃　But

the　category　of　substance；　when　the　conception　of　a　body　is　brought

under　it；　determines　that；　and　its　empirical　intuition　in　experience

must　be　contemplated　always　as　subject　and　never　as　mere　predicate。

And　so　with　all　the　other　categories。



　　SECTION　II　Transcendental　Deduction　of　the　pure　Conceptions　of

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　the　Understanding。　SS　11



　　Of　the　Possibility　of　a　Conjunction　of　the　manifold　representations

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　given　by　Sense。



　　The　manifold　content　in　our　representations　can　be　given　in　an

intuition　which　is　merely　sensuous…　in　other　words；　is　nothing　but

susceptibility；　and　the　form　of　this　intuition　can　exist　a　priori　in

our　faculty　of　representation；　without　being　anything　else　but　the

mode　in　which　the　subject　is　affected。　But　the　conjunction

（conjunctio）　of　a　manifold　in　intuition　never　can　be　given　us　by　the

senses；　it　cannot　therefore　be　contained　in　the　pure　form　of

sensuous　intuition；　for　it　is　a　s