按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
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。
Possible experience can alone give reality to our conceptions； without
it a conception is merely an idea； without truth or relation to an
object。 Hence a possible empirical conception must be the standard
by which we are to judge whether an idea is anything more than an idea
and fiction of thought； or whether it relates to an object in the
world。 If we say of a thing that in relation to some other thing it is
too large or too small； the former is considered as existing for the
sake of the latter； and requiring to be adapted to it。 Among the
trivial subjects of discussion in the old schools of dialectics was
this question： 〃If a ball cannot pass through a hole； shall we say
that the ball is too large or the hole too small？〃 In this case it
is indifferent what expression we employ； for we do not know which
exists for the sake of the other。 On the other hand； we cannot say：
〃The man is too long for his coat〃； but： 〃The coat is too short for
the man。〃
We are thus led to the well…founded suspicion that