the critique of pure reason- 第85部分

a　practical　interest；　as　an　advancement　of　the　speculative　interests

of　the　mind　（in　order；　when　it　is　convenient　for　itself；　to　break

the　thread　of　our　physical　investigations；　and；　under　pretence　of

extending　our　cognition；　connect　them　with　transcendental　ideas；　by

means　of　which　we　really　know　only　that　we　know　nothing）…　if；　I　say；

the　empiricist　rested　satisfied　with　this　benefit；　the　principle

advanced　by　him　would　be　a　maxim　recommending　moderation　in　the

pretensions　of　reason　and　modesty　in　its　affirmations；　and　at　the　same

time　would　direct　us　to　the　right　mode　of　extending　the　province　of

the　understanding；　by　the　help　of　the　only　true　teacher；　experience。

In　obedience　to　this　advice；　intellectual　hypotheses　and　faith　would

not　be　called　in　aid　of　our　practical　interests；　nor　should　we

introduce　them　under　the　pompous　titles　of　science　and　insight。　For

speculative　cognition　cannot　find　an　objective　basis　any　other　where

than　in　experience；　and；　when　we　overstep　its　limits　our　synthesis；

which　requires　ever　new　cognitions　independent　of　experience；　has　no

substratum　of　intuition　upon　which　to　build。

　　But　if…　as　often　happens…　empiricism；　in　relation　to　ideas；

becomes　itself　dogmatic　and　boldly　denies　that　which　is　above　the

sphere　of　its　phenomenal　cognition；　it　falls　itself　into　the　error

of　intemperance…　an　error　which　is　here　all　the　more　reprehensible；　as

thereby　the　practical　interest　of　reason　receives　an　irreparable

injury。

　　And　this　constitutes　the　opposition　between　Epicureanism*　and

Platonism。



　　*It　is；　however；　still　a　matter　of　doubt　whether　Epicurus　ever

propounded　these　principles　as　directions　for　the　objective　employment

of　the　understanding。　If；　indeed；　they　were　nothing　more　than　maxims

for　the　speculative　exercise　of　reason；　he　gives　evidence　therein　a

more　genuine　philosophic　spirit　than　any　of　the　philosophers　of

antiquity。　That；　in　the　explanation　of　phenomena；　we　must　proceed　as

if　the　field　of　inquiry　had　neither　limits　in　space　nor　commencement

in　time；　that　we　must　be　satisfied　with　the　teaching　of　experience

in　reference　to　the　material　of　which　the　world　is　posed；　that　we　must

not　look　for　any　other　mode　of　the　origination　of　events　than　that

which　is　determined　by　the　unalterable　laws　of　nature；　and　finally；

that　we　not　employ　the　hypothesis　of　a　cause　distinct　from　the　world

to　account　for　a　phenomenon　or　for　the　world　itself…　are　principles

for　the　extension　of　speculative　philosophy；　and　the　discovery　of

the　true　sources　of　the　principles　of　morals；　which；　however　little

conformed　to　in　the　present　day；　are　undoubtedly　correct。　At　the

same　time；　any　one　desirous　of　ignoring；　in　mere　speculation；　these

dogmatical　propositions；　need　not　for　that　reason　be　accused　of

denying　them。



　　Both　Epicurus　and　Plato　assert　more　in　their　systems　than　they　know。

The　former　encourages　and　advances　science…　although　to　the

prejudice　of　the　practical；　the　latter　presents　us　with　excellent

principles　for　the　investigation　of　the　practical；　but；　in　relation　to

everything　regarding　which　we　can　attain　to　speculative　cognition；

permits　reason　to　append　idealistic　explanations　of　natural　phenomena；

to　the　great　injury　of　physical　investigation。

　　3。　In　regard　to　the　third　motive　for　the　preliminary　choice　of　a

party　in　this　war　of　assertions；　it　seems　very　extraordinary　that

empiricism　should　be　utterly　unpopular。　We　should　be　inclined　to

believe　that　the　common　understanding　would　receive　it　with

pleasure…　promising　as　it　does　to　satisfy　it　without　passing　the

bounds　of　experience　and　its　connected　order；　while　transcendental

dogmatism　obliges　it　to　rise　to　conceptions　which　far　surpass　the

intelligence　and　ability　of　the　most　practised　thinkers。　But　in

this；　in　truth；　is　to　be　found　its　real　motive。　For　the　common

understanding　thus　finds　itself　in　a　situation　where　not　even　the　most

learned　can　have　the　advantage　of　it。　If　it　understands　little　or

nothing　about　these　transcendental　conceptions；　no　one　can　boast　of

understanding　any　more；　and　although　it　may　not　express　itself　in　so

scholastically　correct　a　manner　as　others；　it　can　busy　itself　with

reasoning　and　arguments　without　end；　wandering　among　mere　ideas；　about

which　one　can　always　be　very　eloquent；　because　we　know　nothing　about

them；　while；　in　the　observation　and　investigation　of　nature；　it

would　be　forced　to　remain　dumb　and　to　confess　its　utter　ignorance。

Thus　indolence　and　vanity　form　of　themselves　strong　recommendations　of

these　principles。　Besides；　although　it　is　a　hard　thing　for　a

philosopher　to　assume　a　principle；　of　which　he　can　give　to　himself

no　reasonable　account；　and　still　more　to　employ　conceptions；　the

objective　reality　of　which　cannot　be　established；　nothing　is　more

usual　with　the　common　understanding。　It　wants　something　which　will

allow　it　to　go　to　work　with　confidence。　The　difficulty　of　even

comprehending　a　supposition　does　not　disquiet　it；　because…　not　knowing

what　comprehending　means…　it　never　even　thinks　of　the　supposition　it

may　be　adopting　as　a　principle；　and　regards　as　known　that　with　which

it　has　become　familiar　from　constant　use。　And；　at　last；　all

speculative　interests　disappear　before　the　practical　interests　which

it　holds　dear；　and　it　fancies　that　it　understands　and　knows　what　its

necessities　and　hopes　incite　it　to　assume　or　to　believe。　Thus　the

empiricism　of　transcendentally　idealizing　reason　is　robbed　of　all

popularity；　and；　however　prejudicial　it　may　be　to　the　highest

practical　principles；　there　is　no　fear　that　it　will　ever　pass　the

limits　of　the　schools；　or　acquire　any　favour　or　influence　in　society

or　with　the　multitude　a

　　Human　reason　is　by　nature　architectonic。　That　is　to　say；　it

regards　all　cognitions　as　parts　of　a　possible　system；　and　hence

accepts　only　such　principles　as　at　least　do　not　incapacitate　a

cognition　to　which　we　may　have　attained　from　being　placed　along　with

others　in　a　general　system。　But　the　propositions　of　the　antithesis　are

of　a　character　which　renders　the　completion　of　an　edifice　of

cognitions　impossible。　According　to　these；　beyond　one　state　or　epoch

of　the　world　there　is　always　to　be　found　one　more　ancient；　in　every

part　always　other　parts　themselves　divisible；　preceding　every　event

another；　the　origin　of　which　must　itself　be　sought　still　higher；　and

everything　in　existence　is　conditioned；　and　still　not　dependent　on

an　unconditioned　and　primal　existence。　As；　therefore；　the　antithesis

will　not　concede　the　existence　of　a　first　beginning　which　might　be

available　as　a　foundation；　a　complete　edifice　of　cognition；　in　the

presence　of　such　hypothesis；　is　utterly　impossible。　Thus　the

architectonic　interest　of　reason；　which　requires　a　unity…　not

empirical；　but　a　priori　and　rational…　forms　a　natural　recommendation

for　the　assertions　of　the　thesis　in　our　antinomy。

　　But　if　any　one　could　free　himself　entirely　from　all　considerations

of　interest；　and　weigh　without　partiality　the　assertions　of　reason；

attending　only　to　their　content；　irrespective　of　the　consequences

which　follow　from　them；　such　a　person；　on　the　supposition　that　he　knew

no　other　way　out　of　the　confusion　than　to　settle　the　truth　of　one　or

other　of　the　conflicting　doctrines；　would　live　in　a　state　of　continual

hesitation。　Today；　he　would　feel　convinced　that　the　human　will　is

free；　to…morrow；　considering　the　indissoluble　chain　of　nature；　he

would　look　on　freedom　as　a　mere　illusion　and　declare　nature　to　be

all…in…all。　But；　if　he　were　called　to　action；　the　play　of　the　merely

speculative　reason　would　disappear　like　the　shapes　of　a　dream；　and

practical　interest　would　dictate　his　choice　of　principles。　But；　as

it　well　befits　a　reflective　and　inquiring　being　to　devote　certain

periods　of　time　to　the　examination　of　its　own　reason…　to　divest　itself

of　all　partiality；　and　frankly　to　communicate　its　observations　for　the

judgement　and　opinion　of　others；　so　no　one　can　be　blamed　for；　much

less　prevented　from；　placing　both　parties　on　their　trial；　with

permission　to　end　themselves；　free　from　intimidation；　before

intimidation；　before　a　sworn　jury　of　equal　condition　with

themselves…　the　condition　of　weak　and　fallible　men。





　　　　　　　SECTION　IV。　Of　the　necessity　imposed　upon　Pure　Reason

　　　　　　　　　　　of　presenting　a　Solution　of　its　Transcendental

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Problems。



　　To　avow　an　ability　to　solve　all　problems　and　to　answer　all　questions

would　be　a　profession　certain　to　convict　any　philosopher　of

extravagant　boasting　and　self…conceit；　and　at　once　to　destroy　the

confidence　that　might　otherwise　have　been　reposed　in　him。　There　are；

however；　sciences　so　constituted　that　every　question　arising　within

their　sphere　must　necessarily　be　capable　of　receiving　an　answer　from

the　knowledge　already　possessed；　for　the　answer　must　be　received

from　the　same　sources　whence　the　question　arose。　In　such　sciences　it

is　not　allowable　to　excuse　ourselves　on　the　plea　of