the critique of pure reason- 第92部分

condition　to　condition；　in　order　to　discover；　in　conformity　with　the

rule　of　reason；　a　full　and　correct　answer　to　the　questions　proposed　by

reason　itself。

　　This　principle　of　reason　is　hence　valid　only　as　a　rule　for　the

extension　of　a　possible　experience…　its　invalidity　as　a　principle

constitutive　of　phenomena　in　themselves　having　been　sufficiently

demonstrated。　And　thus；　too；　the　antinomial　conflict　of　reason　with

itself　is　completely　put　an　end　to；　inasmuch　as　we　have　not　only

presented　a　critical　solution　of　the　fallacy　lurking　in　the　opposite

statements　of　reason；　but　have　shown　the　true　meaning　of　the　ideas

which　gave　rise　to　these　statements。　The　dialectical　principle　of

reason　has；　therefore；　been　changed　into　a　doctrinal　principle。　But　in

fact；　if　this　principle；　in　the　subjective　signification　which　we　have

shown　to　be　its　only　true　sense；　may　be　guaranteed　as　a　principle　of

the　unceasing　extension　of　the　employment　of　our　understanding；　its

influence　and　value　are　just　as　great　as　if　it　were　an　axiom　for　the　a

priori　determination　of　objects。　For　such　an　axiom　could　not　exert　a

stronger　influence　on　the　extension　and　rectification　of　our

knowledge；　otherwise　than　by　procuring　for　the　principles　of　the

understanding　the　most　widely　expanded　employment　in　the　field　of

experience。



　　I。　Solution　of　the　Cosmological　Idea　of　the　Totality　of　the

　　　　　　　　　　Composition　of　Phenomena　in　the　Universe。



　　Here；　as　well　as　in　the　case　of　the　other　cosmological　problems；　the

ground　of　the　regulative　principle　of　reason　is　the　proposition　that

in　our　empirical　regress　no　experience　of　an　absolute　limit；　and

consequently　no　experience　of　a　condition；　which　is　itself

absolutely　unconditioned；　is　discoverable。　And　the　truth　of　this

proposition　itself　rests　upon　the　consideration　that　such　an

experience　must　represent　to　us　phenomena　as　limited　by　nothing　or　the

mere　void；　on　which　our　continued　regress　by　means　of　perception

must　abut…　which　is　impossible。

　　Now　this　proposition；　which　declares　that　every　condition　attained

in　the　empirical　regress　must　itself　be　considered　empirically

conditioned；　contains　the　rule　in　terminis；　which　requires　me；　to

whatever　extent　I　may　have　proceeded　in　the　ascending　series；　always

to　look　for　some　higher　member　in　the　series…　whether　this　member　is

to　become　known　to　me　through　experience；　or　not。

　　Nothing　further　is　necessary；　then；　for　the　solution　of　the　first

cosmological　problem；　than　to　decide；　whether；　in　the　regress　to　the

unconditioned　quantity　of　the　universe　（as　regards　space　and　time）；

this　never　limited　ascent　ought　to　be　called　a　regressus　in

infinitum　or　indefinitum。

　　The　general　representation　which　we　form　in　our　minds　of　the

series　of　all　past　states　or　conditions　of　the　world；　or　of　all　the

things　which　at　present　exist　in　it；　is　itself　nothing　more　than　a

possible　empirical　regress；　which　is　cogitated…　although　in　an

undetermined　manner…　in　the　mind；　and　which　gives　rise　to　the

conception　of　a　series　of　conditions　for　a　given　object。*　Now　I　have　a

conception　of　the　universe；　but　not　an　intuition…　that　is；　not　an

intuition　of　it　as　a　whole。　Thus　I　cannot　infer　the　magnitude　of　the

regress　from　the　quantity　or　magnitude　of　the　world；　and　determine　the

former　by　means　of　the　latter；　on　the　contrary；　I　must　first　of　all

form　a　conception　of　the　quantity　or　magnitude　of　the　world　from　the

magnitude　of　the　empirical　regress。　But　of　this　regress　I　know　nothing

more　than　that　I　ought　to　proceed　from　every　given　member　of　the

series　of　conditions　to　one　still　higher。　But　the　quantity　of　the

universe　is　not　thereby　determined；　and　we　cannot　affirm　that　this

regress　proceeds　in　infinitum。　Such　an　affirmation　would　anticipate

the　members　of　the　series　which　have　not　yet　been　reached；　and

represent　the　number　of　them　as　beyond　the　grasp　of　any　empirical

synthesis；　it　would　consequently　determine　the　cosmical　quantity　prior

to　the　regress　（although　only　in　a　negative　manner）…　which　is

impossible。　For　the　world　is　not　given　in　its　totality　in　any

intuition：　consequently；　its　quantity　cannot　be　given　prior　to　the

regress。　It　follows　that　we　are　unable　to　make　any　declaration

respecting　the　cosmical　quantity　in　itself…　not　even　that　the

regress　in　it　is　a　regress　in　infinitum；　we　must　only　endeavour　to

attain　to　a　conception　of　the　quantity　of　the　universe；　in

conformity　with　the　rule　which　determines　the　empirical　regress　in　it。

But　this　rule　merely　requires　us　never　to　admit　an　absolute　limit　to

our　series…　how　far　soever　we　may　have　proceeded　in　it；　but　always；　on

the　contrary；　to　subordinate　every　phenomenon　to　some　other　as　its

condition；　and　consequently　to　proceed　to　this　higher　phenomenon。　Such

a　regress　is；　therefore；　the　regressus　in　indefinitum；　which；　as　not

determining　a　quantity　in　the　object；　is　clearly　distinguishable

from　the　regressus　in　infinitum。



　　*The　cosmical　series　can　neither　be　greater　nor　smaller　than　the

possible　empirical　regress；　upon　which　its　conception　is　based。　And　as

this　regress　cannot　be　a　determinate　infinite　regress；　still　less　a

determinate　finite　（absolutely　limited）；　it　is　evident　that　we

cannot　regard　the　world　as　either　finite　or　infinite；　because　the

regress；　which　gives　us　the　representation　of　the　world；　is　neither

finite　nor　infinite。



　　It　follows　from　what　we　have　said　that　we　are　not　justified　in

declaring　the　world　to　be　infinite　in　space；　or　as　regards　past

time。　For　this　conception　of　an　infinite　given　quantity　is

empirical；　but　we　cannot　apply　the　conception　of　an　infinite

quantity　to　the　world　as　an　object　of　the　senses。　I　cannot　say；　〃The

regress　from　a　given　perception　to　everything　limited　either　in

space　or　time；　proceeds　in　infinitum；〃　for　this　presupposes　an

infinite　cosmical　quantity；　neither　can　I　say；　〃It　is　finite；〃　for

an　absolute　limit　is　likewise　impossible　in　experience。　It　follows

that　I　am　not　entitled　to　make　any　assertion　at　all　respecting　the

whole　object　of　experience…　the　world　of　sense；　I　must　limit　my

declarations　to　the　rule　according　to　which　experience　or　empirical

knowledge　is　to　be　attained。

　　To　the　question；　therefore；　respecting　the　cosmical　quantity；　the

first　and　negative　answer　is：　〃The　world　has　no　beginning　in　time；　and

no　absolute　limit　in　space。〃

　　For；　in　the　contrary　case；　it　would　be　limited　by　a　void　time　on　the

one　hand；　and　by　a　void　space　on　the　other。　Now；　since　the　world；　as　a

phenomenon；　cannot　be　thus　limited　in　itself　for　a　phenomenon　is　not　a

thing　in　itself；　it　must　be　possible　for　us　to　have　a　perception　of

this　limitation　by　a　void　time　and　a　void　space。　But　such　a

perception…　such　an　experience　is　impossible；　because　it　has　no

content。　Consequently；　an　absolute　cosmical　limit　is　empirically；

and　therefore　absolutely；　impossible。*



　　*The　reader　will　remark　that　the　proof　presented　above　is　very

different　from　the　dogmatical　demonstration　given　in　the　antithesis　of

the　first　antinomy。　In　that　demonstration；　it　was　taken　for　granted

that　the　world　is　a　thing　in　itself…　given　in　its　totality　prior　to

all　regress；　and　a　determined　position　in　space　and　time　was　denied　to

it…　if　it　was　not　considered　as　occupying　all　time　and　all　space。

Hence　our　conclusion　differed　from　that　given　above；　for　we　inferred

in　the　antithesis　the　actual　infinity　of　the　world。



　　From　this　follows　the　affirmative　answer：　〃The　regress　in　the　series

of　phenomena…　as　a　determination　of　the　cosmical　quantity；　proceeds　in

indefinitum。〃　This　is　equivalent　to　saying：　〃The　world　of　sense　has　no

absolute　quantity；　but　the　empirical　regress　（through　which　alone

the　world　of　sense　is　presented　to　us　on　the　side　of　its　conditions）

rests　upon　a　rule；　which　requires　it　to　proceed　from　every　member　of

the　series；　as　conditioned；　to　one　still　more　remote　（whether

through　personal　experience；　or　by　means　of　history；　or　the　chain　of

cause　and　effect）；　and　not　to　cease　at　any　point　in　this　extension

of　the　possible　empirical　employment　of　the　understanding。〃　And　this

is　the　proper　and　only　use　which　reason　can　make　of　its　principles。

　　The　above　rule　does　not　prescribe　an　unceasing　regress　in　one　kind

of　phenomena。　It　does　not；　for　example；　forbid　us；　in　our　ascent

from　an　individual　human　being　through　the　line　of　his　ancestors；　to

expect　that　we　shall　discover　at　some　point　of　the　regress　a

primeval　pair；　or　to　admit；　in　the　series　of　heavenly　bodies；　a　sun　at

the　farthest　possible　distance　from　some　centre。　All　that　it　demands

is　a　perpetual　progress　from　phenomena　to　phenomena；　even　although

an　actual　perception　is　not　presented　by　them　（as　in　the　case　of　our

perceptions　being　so　weak　as　that　we　are　unable　to　become　conscious　of

them）；　since　they；　nevertheless；　belong　to　possible　experience。

　　Every　beginning　is　in　time；　and　all　limits　to　extension　are　in

space。　But　space　and　time　are　in　the　world　of　sense。　Co