But I say, that the law of nature remains, whether the rational being is the cause of the effects in the sensuous world from reason, that is, through freedom, or whether it does not determine them on grounds of reason. For, if the former is the case, the action is performed according to maxims, the effect of which as appearance is always conformable to constant laws; if the latter is the case, and the action not performed on principles of reason, it is subjected to the empirical laws of the sensibility, and in both cases the effects are connected according to constant laws; more than this we do not require or know concerning natural necessity. But in the former case reason is the cause of these laws of nature, and therefore free; in the latter the effects follow according to mere natural laws of sensibility, because reason does not influence it; but reason itself is not determined on that account by the sensibility, and is therefore free in this case too. Freedom is therefore no hindrance to natural law in appearance, neither does this law abrogate the freedom of the practical use of reason, which is connected with things in themselves, as determining grounds. Thus practical freedom, viz., the freedom in which reason possesses causality according to objectively determining grounds, is rescued and yet natural necessity is not in the least curtailed with regard to the very same effects, as appearances. The same remarks will serve to explain what we had to say concerning transcendental freedom and its compatibility with natural necessity (in the same subject, but not taken in the same reference). For, as to this, every beginning of the action of a being from objective causes regarded as determining grounds, is always a first start, though the same action is in the series of appearances only a subordinate start, which must be preceded by a state of the cause, which determines it, and is itself determined in the same manner by another immediately preceding. Thus we are able, in rational beings, or in beings generally, so far as their causality is determined in them as things in themselves, to imagine a faculty of beginning from itself a series of states, without falling into contradiction with the laws of nature. For the relation of the action to objective grounds of reason is not a time-relation; in this case that which determines the causality does not precede in time the action, because such determining grounds represent not a reference to objects of sense, e.g., to causes in the appearances, but to determining causes, as things in themselves, which do not rank under conditions of time. And in this way the action, with regard to the causality of reason, can be considered as a first start in respect to the series of appearances, and yet also as a merely subordinate beginning. We may therefore without contradiction consider it in the former aspect as free, but in the latter (in so far as it is merely appearance) as subject to natural necessity. As to the fourth Antinomy, it is solved in the same way as the conflict of reason with itself in the third. For, provided the cause in the appearance is distinguished from the cause of the appearance (so far as it can be thought as a thing in itself), both propositions are perfectly reconcilable: the one, that there is nowhere in the sensuous world a cause (according to similar laws of causality), whose existence is absolutely necessary; the other, that this world is nevertheless connected with a Necessary Being as its cause (but of another kind and according to another law). The incompatibility of these propositions entirely rests upon the mistake of extending what is valid merely of appearances to things in themselves, and in general confusing both in one concept. Sect. 54. This then is the proposition and this the solution of the whole antinomy, in which reason finds itself involved in the application of its principles to the sensible world. The former alone (the mere proposition) would be a considerable service in the cause of our knowledge of human reason, even though the solution might fail to fully satisfy the reader, who has here to combat a natural illusion, which has been but recently exposed to him, and which he had hitherto always regarded as genuine. For one result at least is unavoidable. As it is quite impossible to prevent this conflict of reason with itself-so long as the objects of the sensible world are taken for things in themselves, and not for mere appearances, which they are in fact-the reader is thereby compelled to examine over again the deduction of all our a priori cognition and the proof which I have given of my deduction in order to come to a decision on the question. This is all I require at present; for when in this occupation he shall have thought himself deep enough into the nature of pure reason, those concepts by which alone the solution of the conflict of reason is possible, will become sufficiently familiar to him. Without this preparation I cannot expect an unreserved assent even from the most attentive reader. III. The Theological Idea. 34 Sect. 55. The third transcendental Idea, which affords matter for the most important, but, if pursued only speculatively, transcendent and thereby dialectical use of reason, is the ideal of pure reason. Reason in this case does not, as with the psychological and the cosmological Ideas, begin from experience, and err by exaggerating its grounds, in striving to attain, if possible, the absolute completeness of their series. It rather totally breaks with experience, and from mere concepts of what constitutes the absolute completeness of a thing in general, consequently by means of the idea of a most perfect primal Being, it proceeds to determine the possibility and therefore the actuality of all other things. And so the mere presupposition of a Being, who is conceived not in the series of experience, yet for the purposes of experience-for the sake of comprehending its connection, order, and unity -i.e., the idea [the notion of it], is more easily distinguished from the concept of the understanding here, than in the former cases. Hence we can easily expose the dialectical illusion which arises from our making the subjective conditions of our thinking objective conditions of objects themselves, and an hypothesis necessary for the satisfaction of our reason, a dogma. As the observations of the Critique on the pretensions of transcendental theology are intelligible, clear, and decisive, I have nothing more to add on the subject. General Remark on the Transcendental Ideas. Sect. 56. The objects, which are given us by experience, are in many respects incomprehensible, and many questions, to which the law of nature leads us, when carried beyond a certain point (though quite conformably to the laws of nature), admit of no answer; as for example the question: why substances attract one another? But if we entirely quit nature, or in pursuing its combinations, exceed all possible experience, and so enter the realm of mere ideas, we cannot then say that the object is incomprehensible, and that the nature of things proposes to us insoluble problems. For we are not then concerned with nature or in general with given objects, but with concepts, which have their origin merely in our reason, and with mere creations of thought; and all the problems that arise from our notions of them must be solved, because of course reason can and must give a full account of its own procedure. 35 As the psychological, cosmological, and theological Ideas are nothing but pure concepts of reason, which cannot be given in any experience, the questions which reason asks us about them are put to us not by the objects, but by mere maxims of our reason for the sake of its own satisfaction. They must all be capable of satisfactory answers, which is done by showing that they are principles which bring our use of the understanding into thorough agreement, completeness, and synthetical unity, and that they so far hold good of experience only, but of experience as a whole. Although an absolute whole of experience is impossible, the idea of a whole of cognition according to principles must impart to our knowledge a peculiar kind of unity, that of a system, without which it is nothing but piecework, and cannot be used for proving the existence of a highest purpose (which can only be the general system of all purposes), I do not here refer only to the practical, but also to the highest purpose of the speculative use of reason. The transcendental Ideas therefore express the peculiar application of reason as a principle of systematic unity in the use of the understanding.
同类推荐
热门推荐
传媒产业法律规制问题研究
本书对传媒产业的法律规制问题进行了系统、深入的研究,并构建了一个包括传媒产业主体法、传媒产业行为法、传媒产业权利保护法等在内的完整的传媒产业法律规制体系。内容丰富,资料翔实,理论和实践相结合,既有一定的理论价值,又有较强的实用价值和现实指导意义。名家教子书:父亲的榜样(外国篇)
古语说:“子不教,父之过。”从古到今,父亲在孩子成长教育中的角色是不可替代的,责任重大。父亲如果没有尽到自己应尽的教育子女的责任和义务,那将是非常严重的过失,父亲是孩子人生的导师,孩子的点滴进步离不开父亲对他的科学培养。本书介绍了近现代中外36位成功父亲的教子经验,这些“榜样父亲”的教子经验包含了丰富而深刻的教育哲理,在中国家庭教育的历史上、在今天都有着广泛的影响,意义深远,而且他们的教育智慧在今天的实践中依然不断地被运用。本书可读性强,指导意义深远,具有一定的前瞻性,力求对中国的父母起到真正意义上的教子指导作用,是当代父母不可多得的重要参考。重生八零:小妻子,很泼辣
重生后,她回到四十年前,变成了同名同姓的另一个人。爷奶不喜,父亲不爱,上头还有个事事压她一头的堂姐,不怕,有疼爱她的母亲就够了。家里贫穷,乡下村姑,除了长得好看点一无是处,不怕,一双手加聪明脑子成为万元户。心机深沉,泼辣耍狠,名声坏透村里没人敢娶,不怕,那个帅帅痞痞的男朋友是个大忠犬。韩宴恒:大家都瞎了,只有我看到了她软萌可爱。婚后密爱:顾少追妻指南
刘浩曾经和莫寒说过,说他不是她的王子,给不了她尊贵的爱恋,可是他可以做她的骑士,会给她一生的守护。莫寒为了这句话,便决心跟刘浩一辈子。为了他,她相信婚姻的天长地久,相信爱情的山盟海誓。为了他,她可以不顾他家庭的贫困,家人的极品,更不顾他凤凰男的身份。可是她不曾想过,一次意外,她闯进她的卧室,竟然发现他和另外一个女人……从此以后,好男人的典范变成渣男的典范;小三登堂入室竟然是莫寒大学的同学;婆婆公公以照顾他们生活为名住进了莫寒的家;极品的事情一件接着一件,莫寒终于忍无可忍,慢慢的开始自己的新生活。突然出现的大学同学顾梓言给了莫寒新的希望和人生。给她工作,给她重新规划人生。可是,现实却不让她……