For as soon as these pure concepts of reason (the transcendental ideas) are given, they could hardly, except they be held innate, be found anywhere else, than in the same activity of reason, which, so far as it regards mere form, constitutes the logical element of the syllogisms of reason; but, so far as it represents judgments of the understanding with respect to the one or to the other form a priori, constitutes transcendental concepts of pure reason. The formal distinction of syllogisms renders their division into categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive necessary. The concepts of reason founded on them contained therefore, first, the idea of the complete subject (the substantial); secondly, the idea of the complete series of conditions; thirdly, the determination of all concepts in the idea of a complete complex of that which is possible. 26 The first idea is psychological, the second cosmological, the third theological, and, as all three give occasion to Dialectics, yet each in its own way, the division of the whole Dialects of pure reason into its Paralogism, its Antinomy, and its Ideal, was arranged accordingly. Through this deduction we may feel assured that all the claims of pure reason are completely represented, and that none can be wanting; because the faculty of reason itself, whence they all take their origin, is thereby completely surveyed. Sect. 44. In these general considerations it is also remarkable that the ideas of reason are unlike the categories, of no service to the use of our understanding in experience, but quite dispensable, and become even an impediment to the maxims of a rational cognition of nature. Yet in another aspect still to be determined they are necessary. Whether the soul is or is not a simple substance, is of no consequence to us in the explanation of its phenomena. For we cannot render the notion of a simple being intelligible by any possible experience that is sensuous or concrete. The notion is therefore quite void as regards all hoped-for insight into the cause of phenomena, and cannot at all serve as a principle of the explanation of that which internal or external experience supplies. So the cosmological ideas of the beginning of the world or of its eternity (a parte ante) cannot be of any greater service to us for the explanation of any event in the world itself. And finally we must, according to a right maxim of the philosophy of nature, refrain from all explanations of the design of nature, drawn from the will of a Supreme Being; because this would not be natural philosophy, but an acknowledgment that we have come to the end of it. The use of these ideas, therefore, is quite different from that of those categories by which (and by the principles built upon which) experience itself first becomes possible. But our laborious analytics of the understanding would be superfluous if we had nothing else in view than the mere cognition Of nature as it can be given in experience; for reason does its work, both in mathematics and in the science of nature, quite safely and well without any of this subtle deduction. Therefore our Critique of the Understanding combines with the ideas of pure reason for a purpose which lies beyond the empirical use of the understanding; but this we have above declared to be in this aspect totally inadmissible, and without any object or meaning. Yet there must be a harmony between that of the nature of reason and that of the understanding, and the former must contribute to the perfection of the latter, and cannot possibly upset it. The solution of this question is as follows: Pure reason does not in its ideas point to particular objects, which lie beyond the field of experience, but only requires completeness of the use of the understanding in the system of experience. But this completeness can be a completeness of principles only, not of intuitions [i.e., concrete atsights or Anschauung en] and of objects. In order however to represent the ideas definitely, reason conceives them after the fashion of the cognition of an object. The cognition is as far as these rules are concerned completely determined, but the object is only an idea invented for the purpose of bringing the cognition of the understanding as near as possible to the completeness represented by that idea. Prefatory Remark to the Dialectics of Pure Reason. Sect. 45. We have above shown in Sect. Sect. 33 and 34 that the purity of the categories from all admixture of sensuous determinations may mislead reason into extending their use, quite beyond all experience, to things in themselves; though as these categories themselves find no intuition which can give them meaning or sense in concrete, they, as mere logical functions, can represent a thing in general, but not give by themselves alone a determinate concept of anything. Such hyperbolical objects are distinguished by the appellation of Noumena, or pure beings of the understanding (or better, beings of thought), such as, for example, "substance," but conceived without permanence in time, or "cause," but not acting in time, etc. Here predicates, that only serve to make the conformity-to-law of experience possible, are applied to these concepts, and yet they are deprived of all the conditions of intuition, on which alone experience is possible, and so these concepts lose all significance. There is no danger, however, of the understanding spontaneously making an excursion so very wantonly beyond its own bounds into the field of the mere creatures of thought, without being impelled by foreign laws. But when reason, which cannot be fully satisfied with any empirical use of the rules of the understanding, as being always conditioned, requires a completion of this chain of conditions, then the understanding is forced out of its sphere. And then it partly represents objects of experience in a series so extended that no experience can grasp, partly even (with a view to complete the series) it seeks entirely beyond it noumena, to which it can attach that chain, and so, having at last escaped from the conditions of experience, make its attitude as it were final. These are then the transcendental ideas, which, though according to the true but hidden ends of the natural determination of our reason, they may aim not at extravagant concepts, but at an unbounded extension of their empirical use, yet seduce the understanding by an unavoidable illusion to a transcendent use, which, though deceitful, cannot be restrained within the bounds of experience by any resolution, but only by scientific instruction and with much difficulty. !. The Psychological Idea. 27 Sect. 46. People have long since observed, that in all substances the proper subject, that which remains after all the accidents (as predicates) are abstracted, consequently that which forms the substance of things remains unknown, and various complaints have been made concerning these limits to our knowledge. But it will be well to consider that the human understanding is not to be blamed for its inability to know the substance of things, that is, to determine it by itself, but rather for requiring to know it which is a mere idea definitely as though it were a given object. Pure reason requires us to seek for every predicate of a thing its proper subject, and for this subject, which is itself necessarily nothing but a predicate, its subject, and so on indefinitely (or as far as we can reach). But hence it follows, that we must not hold anything, at which we can arrive, to be an ultimate subject, and that substance itself never can be thought by our understanding, however deep we may penetrate, even if all nature were unveiled to us. For the specific nature of our understanding consists in thinking everything discursively, that is, representing it by concepts, and so by mere predicates, to which therefore the absolute subject must always be wanting. Hence all the real properties, by which we know bodies, are mere accidents, not excepting impenetrability, which we can only represent to ourselves as the effect of a power of which the subject is unknown to us. Now we appear to have this substance in the consciousness of ourselves (in the thinking subject), and indeed in an immediate intuition; for all the predicates of an internal sense refer to the ego, as a subject, and I cannot conceive myself as the predicate of any other subject. Hence completeness in the reference of the given concepts as predicates to a subject -- not merely an idea, but an object-that is, the absolute subject itself, seems to be given in experience. But this expectation is disappointed. For the ego is not a concept, 28 but only the indication of the object of the internal sense, so far as we know it by no further predicate. Consequently it cannot be in itself a predicate of any other thing; but just as little can it be a determinate concept of an absolute subject, but is, as in all other cases, only the reference of the internal phenomena to their unknown subject. Yet this idea (which serves very well, as a regulative principle, totally to destroy all materialistic explanations of the internal phenomena of the soul) occasions by a very natural misunderstanding a very specious argument, which, from this supposed cognition of the substance of our thinking being, infers its nature, so far as the knowledge of it falls quite without the complex of experience. Sect. 47. But though we may call this thinking self (the soul) substance, as being the ultimate subject of thinking which cannot be further represented as the predicate of another thing; it remains quite empty and without significance, if permanence- the quality which renders the concept of substances in experience fruitful-cannot be proved of it. But permanence can never be proved of the concept of a substance, as a thing in itself, but for the purposes of experience only. This is sufficiently shown by the first Analogy of Experience, 29 and whoever will not yield to this proof may try for himself whether he can succeed in proving, from the concept of a subject which does not exist itself as the predicate of another thing, that its existence is thoroughly permanent, and that it cannot either in itself or by any natural cause original or be annihilated.
同类推荐
热门推荐
小时候的秘密:一万三千个猜想
这是一只会说话的兔子,这是一只喜欢喝咖啡的兔子,这是一只有着神秘身世的兔子!媚媚猫对家里的这个新成员产生了浓厚的兴趣。她不断猜测着东尼兔的身份,从被变态科学家试验的牺牲品,到外星球神秘旅客,也许还是某个魔法大陆被陷害的王子……哇!真是太不可思议了,媚媚猫对自己侦探家一般的想象力佩服不已。然而这些都不是东尼的真实身份。那么,东尼究竟是谁?今生注定赖上你:野蛮女友
“林少龙,你给我站住,这辈子我是要定你了。”一对恋人在海边戏耍追逐着,说这话的是个女孩。文欣是一个近30岁的单身剩女,既没固定工作,也没恋爱对象,她简直像一个十足的男孩,哪个男人见到都会怕,好不容易找到一份自己喜爱的服装设计工作,却没想到自己的上司竟然是面试那天的倒霉鬼,上班后,她认为他所做的一切都是为了逼她离开昌盛服装公司,天天都要绞尽脑汁想着怎么对付他,居然私底下还跟他签了一年的“奴隶”协议,发生一大堆的搞笑趣事,这一切都在一个女人的出现后改变了,变成刀子嘴豆腐心的两人,情感的纠葛,利益的旋涡,如何上演一个单身剩女爱情与工作的双丰收?囚宠逃妃:殿下别撩火
他,绝世风貌,痞性邪魅强势霸道却唯独只对她。她,美貌如仙,虐他,气他,刺激他,最后一跑了之。有一天,她憋了很久,说道:“喂,人妖,你能不能不要每晚都占我的床睡觉,本来我就嫌床小。”他邪魅一笑,说道:“要不为夫在下,你在上,这样就够宽敞了。”她捂额,汗颜,“你能再无耻点吗?”话音落,他欺压上身,痞性十足,“原来娘子是嫌弃为夫不够无耻呀,为夫这就给你来点猛的。”说罢,床咯吱声响彻不停......前世今生,皆有因果,因果循环,因为情债难还。1V1强势宠,爽甜到爆!萌宝叛变:妈咪一个亿
一场意外,她失去了她的老大,临死前老大让她要好好照顾一个男人,当晚她躲避追杀终于找到了那个男人,却稀里糊涂被他睡了……再次归来已是六年后——“妈咪,我已经给你找好了工作,是我爹地的公司”某只小糯米团子笑的一脸无害……品悟南怀瑾:做人与处世
本书从《南怀瑾谈生活与生存》作为出发点,根据南怀瑾的《论语别裁》《孟子旁通》《老子他说》《易经杂说》《易经系传别讲》等著作将人生分为“人生的价值”、“事业的真义”、“圣人与英雄”、“君子与小人”、“读书与学问”、“修身养性”、“人情世故”、“时位与贵贱”、“烦恼”等,从这些主题入手,在南怀瑾先生的人生哲学基础上加以理论,使读者有机会在南怀瑾先生的人生哲学里获取更多的为人处世、安顿身心的人生智慧。