the critique of pure reason- 第82部分

beginning　comprehensible。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ON　THE　ANTITHESIS。



　　The　assertor　of　the　all…sufficiency　of　nature　in　regard　to　causality

（transcendental　Physiocracy）；　in　opposition　to　the　doctrine　of

freedom；　would　defend　his　view　of　the　question　somewhat　in　the

following　manner。　He　would　say；　in　answer　to　the　sophistical　arguments

of　the　opposite　party：　If　you　do　not　accept　a　mathematical　first；　in

relation　to　time；　you　have　no　need　to　seek　a　dynamical　first；　in

regard　to　causality。　Who　compelled　you　to　imagine　an　absolutely　primal

condition　of　the　world；　and　therewith　an　absolute　beginning　of　the

gradually　progressing　successions　of　phenomena…　and；　as　some

foundation　for　this　fancy　of　yours；　to　set　bounds　to　unlimited　nature？

Inasmuch　as　the　substances　in　the　world　have　always　existed…　at

least　the　unity　of　experience　renders　such　a　supposition　quite

necessary…　there　is　no　difficulty　in　believing　also；　that　the

changes　in　the　conditions　of　these　substances　have　always　existed；

and；　consequently；　that　a　first　beginning；　mathematical　or

dynamical；　is　by　no　means　required。　The　possibility　of　such　an

infinite　derivation；　without　any　initial　member　from　which　all　the

others　result；　is　certainly　quite　incomprehensible。　But；　if　you　are

rash　enough　to　deny　the　enigmatical　secrets　of　nature　for　this　reason；

you　will　find　yourselves　obliged　to　deny　also　the　existence　of　many

fundamental　properties　of　natural　objects　（such　as　fundamental

forces）；　which　you　can　just　as　little　comprehend；　and　even　the

possibility　of　so　simple　a　conception　as　that　of　change　must　present

to　you　insuperable　difficulties。　For　if　experience　did　not　teach　you

that　it　was　real；　you　never　could　conceive　a　priori　the　possibility　of

this　ceaseless　sequence　of　being　and　non…being。

　　But　if　the　existence　of　a　transcendental　faculty　of　freedom　is

granted…　a　faculty　of　originating　changes　in　the　world…　this　faculty

must　at　least　exist　out　of　and　apart　from　the　world；　although　it　is

certainly　a　bold　assumption；　that；　over　and　above　the　complete　content

of　all　possible　intuitions；　there　still　exists　an　object　which

cannot　be　presented　in　any　possible　perception。　But；　to　attribute　to

substances　in　the　world　itself　such　a　faculty；　is　quite

inadmissible；　for；　in　this　case；　the　connection　of　phenomena

reciprocally　determining　and　determined　according　to　general　laws；

which　is　termed　nature；　and　along　with　it　the　criteria　of　empirical

truth；　which　enable　us　to　distinguish　experience　from　mere　visionary

dreaming；　would　almost　entirely　disappear。　In　proximity　with　such　a

lawless　faculty　of　freedom；　a　system　of　nature　is　hardly　cogitable；

for　the　laws　of　the　latter　would　be　continually　subject　to　the

intrusive　influences　of　the　former；　and　the　course　of　phenomena；　which

would　otherwise　proceed　regularly　and　uniformly；　would　become

thereby　confused　and　disconnected。





　　　　　　　　FOURTH　CONFLICT　OF　THE　TRANSCENDENTAL　IDEAS。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　THESIS。



　　There　exists　either　in；　or　in　connection　with　the　world…　either　as　a

part　of　it；　or　as　the　cause　of　it…an　absolutely　necessary　being。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。



　　The　world　of　sense；　as　the　sum　total　of　all　phenomena；　contains　a

series　of　changes。　For；　without　such　a　series；　the　mental

representation　of　the　series　of　time　itself；　as　the　condition　of　the

possibility　of　the　sensuous　world；　could　not　be　presented　to　us。*

But　every　change　stands　under　its　condition；　which　precedes　it　in　time

and　renders　it　necessary。　Now　the　existence　of　a　given　condition

presupposes　a　complete　series　of　conditions　up　to　the　absolutely

unconditioned；　which　alone　is　absolutely　necessary。　It　follows　that

something　that　is　absolutely　necessary　must　exist；　if　change　exists　as

its　consequence。　But　this　necessary　thing　itself　belongs　to　the

sensuous　world。　For　suppose　it　to　exist　out　of　and　apart　from　it；

the　series　of　cosmical　changes　would　receive　from　it　a　beginning；

and　yet　this　necessary　cause　would　not　itself　belong　to　the　world　of

sense。　But　this　is　impossible。　For；　as　the　beginning　of　a　series　in

time　is　determined　only　by　that　which　precedes　it　in　time；　the　supreme

condition　of　the　beginning　of　a　series　of　changes　must　exist　in　the

time　in　which　this　series　itself　did　not　exist；　for　a　beginning

supposes　a　time　preceding；　in　which　the　thing　that　begins　to　be　was

not　in　existence。　The　causality　of　the　necessary　cause　of　changes；　and

consequently　the　cause　itself；　must　for　these　reasons　belong　to

time…　and　to　phenomena；　time　being　possible　only　as　the　form　of

phenomena。　Consequently；　it　cannot　be　cogitated　as　separated　from

the　world　of　sense…　the　sum　total　of　all　phenomena。　There　is；

therefore；　contained　in　the　world；　something　that　is　absolutely

necessary…　whether　it　be　the　whole　cosmical　series　itself；　or　only　a

part　of　it。



　　*Objectively；　time；　as　the　formal　condition　of　the　possibility　of

change；　precedes　all　changes；　but　subjectively；　and　in

consciousness；　the　representation　of　time；　like　every　other；　is

given　solely　by　occasion　of　perception。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ANTITHESIS。



　　An　absolutely　necessary　being　does　not　exist；　either　in　the　world；

or　out　of　it…　as　its　cause。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。



　　Grant　that　either　the　world　itself　is　necessary；　or　that　there　is

contained　in　it　a　necessary　existence。　Two　cases　are　possible。

First；　there　must　either　be　in　the　series　of　cosmical　changes　a

beginning；　which　is　unconditionally　necessary；　and　therefore　uncaused…

which　is　at　variance　with　the　dynamical　law　of　the　determination　of

all　phenomena　in　time；　or；　secondly；　the　series　itself　is　without

beginning；　and；　although　contingent　and　conditioned　in　all　its

parts；　is　nevertheless　absolutely　necessary　and　unconditioned　as　a

whole…　which　is　self…contradictory。　For　the　existence　of　an

aggregate　cannot　be　necessary；　if　no　single　part　of　it　possesses

necessary　existence。

　　Grant；　on　the　other　band；　that　an　absolutely　necessary　cause

exists　out　of　and　apart　from　the　world。　This　cause；　as　the　highest

member　in　the　series　of　the　causes　of　cosmical　changes；　must　originate

or　begin*　the　existence　of　the　latter　and　their　series。　In　this　case

it　must　also　begin　to　act；　and　its　causality　would　therefore　belong　to

time；　and　consequently　to　the　sum　total　of　phenomena；　that　is；　to

the　world。　It　follows　that　the　cause　cannot　be　out　of　the　world；　which

is　contradictory　to　the　hypothesis。　Therefore；　neither　in　the　world；

nor　out　of　it　（but　in　causal　connection　with　it）；　does　there　exist　any

absolutely　necessary　being。



　　*The　word　begin　is　taken　in　two　senses。　The　first　is　active…　the

cause　being　regarded　as　beginning　a　series　of　conditions　as　its　effect

（infit）。　The　second　is　passive…　the　causality　in　the　cause　itself

beginning　to　operate　（fit）。　I　reason　here　from　the　first　to　the

second。





　　　　　　　　　　　　　OBSERVATIONS　ON　THE　FOURTH　ANTINOMY。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ON　THE　THESIS。



　　To　demonstrate　the　existence　of　a　necessary　being；　I　cannot　be

permitted　in　this　place　to　employ　any　other　than　the　cosmological

argument；　which　ascends　from　the　conditioned　in　phenomena　to　the

unconditioned　in　conception…　the　unconditioned　being　considered　the

necessary　condition　of　the　absolute　totality　of　the　series。　The　proof；

from　the　mere　idea　of　a　supreme　being；　belongs　to　another　principle　of

reason　and　requires　separate　discussion。

　　The　pure　cosmological　proof　demonstrates　the　existence　of　a

necessary　being；　but　at　the　same　time　leaves　it　quite　unsettled；

whether　this　being　is　the　world　itself；　or　quite　distinct　from　it。

To　establish　the　truth　of　the　latter　view；　principles　are　requisite；

which　are　not　cosmological　and　do　not　proceed　in　the　series　of

phenomena。　We　should　require　to　introduce　into　our　proof　conceptions

of　contingent　beings…　regarded　merely　as　objects　of　the　understanding；

and　also　a　principle　which　enables　us　to　connect　these；　by　means　of

mere　conceptions；　with　a　necessary　being。　But　the　proper　place　for　all

such　arguments　is　a　transcendent　philosophy；　which　has　unhappily　not

yet　been　established。

　　But；　if　we　begin　our　proof　cosmologically；　by　laying　at　the

foundation　of　it　the　series　of　phenomena；　and　the　regress　in　it

according　to　empirical　laws　of　causality；　we　are　not　at　liberty　to

break　off　from　this　mode　of　demonstration　and　to　pass　over　to

something　which　is　not　itself　a　member　of　the　series。　The　condition

must　be　taken　in　exactly　the　same　signification　as　the　relation　of　the

conditioned　to　its　condition　in　the　series　has　been　taken；　for　the

series　must　conduct　us　in　an　unbroken　regress　to　this　supreme

condition。　But　if　this　relation　is　sensuous；　and　belongs　to　the

possible　empirical　employment　of　understanding；　the　supreme

condition　or　cause　must　close　the　regressive　series　according　to　the

laws　of　sensibility　and　consequently；　must　belong　to　the　series　of

time。　It　foll