the critique of pure reason- 第87部分

hid　from　your　senses　and　your　consciousness。　Still；　you　could　not

cognize　in　concreto　the　object　of　your　ideas　in　any　experience。　For

what　is　demanded　is　not　only　this　full　and　complete　intuition；　but

also　a　complete　synthesis　and　the　consciousness　of　its　absolute

totality；　and　this　is　not　possible　by　means　of　any　empirical

cognition。　It　follows　that　your　question…　your　idea…　is　by　no　means

necessary　for　the　explanation　of　any　phenomenon；　and　the　idea　cannot

have　been　in　any　sense　given　by　the　object　itself。　For　such　an

object　can　never　be　presented　to　us；　because　it　cannot　be　given　by　any

possible　experience。　Whatever　perceptions　you　may　attain　to；　you　are

still　surrounded　by　conditions…　in　space；　or　in　time…　and　you　cannot

discover　anything　unconditioned；　nor　can　you　decide　whether　this

unconditioned　is　to　be　placed　in　an　absolute　beginning　of　the

synthesis；　or　in　an　absolute　totality　of　the　series　without　beginning。

A　whole；　in　the　empirical　signification　of　the　term；　is　always

merely　comparative。　The　absolute　whole　of　quantity　（the　universe）；

of　division；　of　derivation；　of　the　condition　of　existence；　with　the

question…　whether　it　is　to　be　produced　by　finite　or　infinite

synthesis；　no　possible　experience　can　instruct　us　concerning。　You　will

not；　for　example；　be　able　to　explain　the　phenomena　of　a　body　in　the

least　degree　better；　whether　you　believe　it　to　consist　of　simple；　or

of　composite　parts；　for　a　simple　phenomenon…　and　just　as　little　an

infinite　series　of　composition…　can　never　be　presented　to　your

perception。　Phenomena　require　and　admit　of　explanation；　only　in　so　far

as　the　conditions　of　that　explanation　are　given　in　perception；　but　the

sum　total　of　that　which　is　given　in　phenomena；　considered　as　an

absolute　whole；　is　itself　a　perception…　and　we　cannot　therefore　seek

for　explanations　of　this　whole　beyond　itself；　in　other　perceptions。

The　explanation　of　this　whole　is　the　proper　object　of　the

transcendental　problems　of　pure　reason。

　　Although；　therefore；　the　solution　of　these　problems　is

unattainable　through　experience；　we　must　not　permit　ourselves　to　say

that　it　is　uncertain　how　the　object　of　our　inquiries　is　constituted。

For　the　object　is　in　our　own　mind　and　cannot　be　discovered　in

experience；　and　we　have　only　to　take　care　that　our　thoughts　are

consistent　with　each　other；　and　to　avoid　falling　into　the　amphiboly　of

regarding　our　idea　as　a　representation　of　an　object　empirically　given；

and　therefore　to　be　cognized　according　to　the　laws　of　experience。　A

dogmatical　solution　is　therefore　not　only　unsatisfactory　but

impossible。　The　critical　solution；　which　may　be　a　perfectly　certain

one；　does　not　consider　the　question　objectively；　but　proceeds　by

inquiring　into　the　basis　of　the　cognition　upon　which　the　question

rests。



　　　　　SECTION　V。　Sceptical　Exposition　of　the　Cosmological　Problems

　　　　　　　　　　　presented　in　the　four　Transcendental　Ideas。



　　We　should　be　quite　willing　to　desist　from　the　demand　of　a　dogmatical

answer　to　our　questions；　if　we　understood　beforehand　that；　be　the

answer　what　it　may；　it　would　only　serve　to　increase　our　ignorance；

to　throw　us　from　one　incomprehensibility　into　another；　from　one

obscurity　into　another　still　greater；　and　perhaps　lead　us　into

irreconcilable　contradictions。　If　a　dogmatical　affirmative　or　negative

answer　is　demanded；　is　it　at　all　prudent　to　set　aside　the　probable

grounds　of　a　solution　which　lie　before　us　and　to　take　into

consideration　what　advantage　we　shall　gain；　if　the　answer　is　to　favour

the　one　side　or　the　other？　If　it　happens　that　in　both　cases　the　answer

is　mere　nonsense；　we　have　in　this　an　irresistible　summons　to　institute

a　critical　investigation　of　the　question；　for　the　purpose　of

discovering　whether　it　is　based　on　a　groundless　presupposition　and

relates　to　an　idea；　the　falsity　of　which　would　be　more　easily

exposed　in　its　application　and　consequences　than　in　the　mere

representation　of　its　content。　This　is　the　great　utility　of　the

sceptical　mode　of　treating　the　questions　addressed　by　pure　reason　to

itself。　By　this　method　we　easily　rid　ourselves　of　the　confusions　of

dogmatism；　and　establish　in　its　place　a　temperate　criticism；　which；　as

a　genuine　cathartic；　will　successfully　remove　the　presumptuous　notions

of　philosophy　and　their　consequence…　the　vain　pretension　to

universal　science。

　　If；　then；　I　could　understand　the　nature　of　a　cosmological　idea　and

perceive；　before　I　entered　on　the　discussion　of　the　subject　at　all；

that；　whatever　side　of　the　question　regarding　the　unconditioned　of　the

regressive　synthesis　of　phenomena　it　favoured…　it　must　either　be　too

great　or　too　small　for　every　conception　of　the　understanding…　I

would　be　able　to　comprehend　how　the　idea；　which　relates　to　an　object

of　experience…　an　experience　which　must　be　adequate　to　and　in

accordance　with　a　possible　conception　of　the　understanding…　must　be

completely　void　and　without　significance；　inasmuch　as　its　object　is

inadequate；　consider　it　as　we　may。　And　this　is　actually　the　case

with　all　cosmological　conceptions；　which；　for　the　reason　above

mentioned；　involve　reason；　so　long　as　it　remains　attached　to　them；

in　an　unavoidable　antinomy。　For　suppose：

　　First；　that　the　world　has　no　beginning…　in　this　case　it　is　too　large

for　our　conception；　for　this　conception；　which　consists　in　a

successive　regress；　cannot　overtake　the　whole　eternity　that　has

elapsed。　Grant　that　it　has　a　beginning；　it　is　then　too　small　for　the

conception　of　the　understanding。　For；　as　a　beginning　presupposes　a

time　preceding；　it　cannot　be　unconditioned；　and　the　law　of　the

empirical　employment　of　the　understanding　imposes　the　necessity　of

looking　for　a　higher　condition　of　time；　and　the　world　is；　therefore；

evidently　too　small　for　this　law。

　　The　same　is　the　case　with　the　double　answer　to　the　question

regarding　the　extent；　in　space；　of　the　world。　For；　if　it　is　infinite

and　unlimited；　it　must　be　too　large　for　every　possible　empirical

conception。　If　it　is　finite　and　limited；　we　have　a　right　to　ask：　〃What

determines　these　limits？〃　Void　space　is　not　a　self…subsistent

correlate　of　things；　and　cannot　be　a　final　condition…　and　still　less

an　empirical　condition；　forming　a　part　of　a　possible　experience。　For

how　can　we　have　any　experience　or　perception　of　an　absolute　void？

But　the　absolute　totality　of　the　empirical　synthesis　requires　that　the

unconditioned　be　an　empirical　conception。　Consequently；　a　finite　world

is　too　small　for　our　conception。

　　Secondly；　if　every　phenomenon　（matter）　in　space　consists　of　an

infinite　number　of　parts；　the　regress　of　the　division　is　always　too

great　for　our　conception；　and　if　the　division　of　space　must　cease　with

some　member　of　the　division　（the　simple）；　it　is　too　small　for　the　idea

of　the　unconditioned。　For　the　member　at　which　we　have　discontinued　our

division　still　admits　a　regress　to　many　more　parts　contained　in　the

object。

　　Thirdly；　suppose　that　every　event　in　the　world　happens　in　accordance

with　the　laws　of　nature；　the　causality　of　a　cause　must　itself　be　an

event　and　necessitates　a　regress　to　a　still　higher　cause；　and

consequently　the　unceasing　prolongation　of　the　series　of　conditions

a　parte　priori。　Operative　nature　is　therefore　too　large　for　every

conception　we　can　form　in　the　synthesis　of　cosmical　events。

　　If　we　admit　the　existence　of　spontaneously　produced　events；　that　is；

of　free　agency；　we　are　driven；　in　our　search　for　sufficient　reasons；

on　an　unavoidable　law　of　nature　and　are　compelled　to　appeal　to　the

empirical　law　of　causality；　and　we　find　that　any　such　totality　of

connection　in　our　synthesis　is　too　small　for　our　necessary　empirical

conception。

　　Fourthly；　if　we　assume　the　existence　of　an　absolutely　necessary

being…　whether　it　be　the　world　or　something　in　the　world；　or　the　cause

of　the　world…　we　must　place　it　in　a　time　at　an　infinite　distance

from　any　given　moment；　for；　otherwise；　it　must　be　dependent　on　some

other　and　higher　existence。　Such　an　existence　is；　in　this　case；　too

large　for　our　empirical　conception；　and　unattainable　by　the

continued　regress　of　any　synthesis。

　　But　if　we　believe　that　everything　in　the　world…　be　it　condition　or

conditioned…　is　contingent；　every　given　existence　is　too　small　for　our

conception。　For　in　this　case　we　are　compelled　to　seek　for　some　other

existence　upon　which　the　former　depends。

　　We　have　said　that　in　all　these　cases　the　cosmological　idea　is　either

too　great　or　too　small　for　the　empirical　regress　in　a　synthesis；　and

consequently　for　every　possible　conception　of　the　understanding。　Why

did　we　not　express　ourselves　in　a　manner　exactly　the　reverse　of　this

and；　instead　of　accusing　the　cosmological　idea　of　over　stepping　or

of　falling　short　of　its　true　aim；　possible　experience；　say　that；　in

the　first　case；　the　empirical　conception　is　always　too　small　for　the

idea；　and　in　the　second　too　great；　and　thus　attach　the　blame　of

these　contradictions　to　the　empirical　regress？　The　reason　is　this。