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！
the system； whereas it is really itself the parent of all that is
systematic in our cognition of nature。 These principles are not mere
hypotheses employed for the purpose of experimenting upon nature；
although when any such connection is discovered； it forms a solid
ground for regarding the hypothetical unity as valid in the sphere
of nature… and thus they are in this respect not without their use。
But we go farther； and maintain that it is manifest that these
principles of parsimony in fundamental causes； variety in effects； and
affinity in phenomena； are in accordance both with reason and
nature； and that they are not mere methods or plans devised for the
purpose of assisting us in our observation of the external world。
But it is plain that this continuity of forms is a mere idea； to
which no adequate object can be discovered in experience。 And this for
two reasons。 First； because the species in nature are really
divided； and hence form quanta discreta； and； if the gradual
progression through their affinity were continuous； the intermediate
members lying between two given species must be infinite in number；
which is impossible。 Secondly； because we cannot make any
determinate empirical use of this law； inasmuch as it does not present
us with any criterion of affinity which could aid us in determining
how far we ought to pursue the graduation of differences： it merely
contains a general indication that it is our duty to seek for and；
if possible； to discover them。
When we arrange these principles of systematic unity in the order
conformable to their employment in experience； they will stand thus：
Variety； Affinity； Unity； each of them； as ideas； being taken in the
highest degree of their completeness。 Reason presupposes the existence
of cognitions of the understanding； which have a direct relation to
experience； and aims at the ideal unity of these cognitions… a unity
which far transcends all experience or empirical notions。 The affinity
of the diverse； notwithstanding the differences existing between its
parts； has a relation to things； but a still closer one to the mere
properties and powers of things。 For example； imperfect experience may
represent the orbits of the planets as circular。 But we discover
variations from this course； and we proceed to suppose that the
planets revolve in a path which； if not a circle； is of a character
very similar to it。 That is to say； the movements of those planets
which do not form a circle will approximate more or less to the
properties of a circle； and probably form an ellipse。 The paths of
comets exhibit still greater variations； for； so far as our
observation extends； they do not return upon their own course in a
circle or ellipse。 But we proceed to the conjecture that comets
describe a parabola； a figure which is closely allied to the
ellipse。 In fact； a parabola is merely an ellipse； with its longer
axis produced to an indefinite extent。 Thus these principles conduct
us to a unity in the genera of the forms of these orbits； and；
proceeding farther； to a unity as regards the cause of the motions
of the heavenly bodies… that is； gravitation。 But we go on extending
our conquests over nature； and endeavour to explain all seeming
deviations from these rules； and even make additions to our system
which no experience can ever substantiate… for example； the theory； in
affinity with that of ellipses； of hyperbolic paths of comets；
pursuing which； these bodies leave our solar system and； passing
from sun to sun； unite the most distant parts of the infinite
universe； which is held together by the same moving power。
The most remarkable circumstance connected with these principles
is that they seem to be transcendental； and； although only
containing ideas for the guidance of the empirical exercise of reason；
and although this empirical employment stands to these ideas in an
asymptotic relation alone （to use a mathematical term）； that is；
continually approximate； without ever being able to attain to them；
they possess； notwithstanding； as a priori synthetical propositions；
objective though undetermined validity； and are available as rules for
possible experience。 In the elaboration of our experience； they may
also be employed with great advantage； as heuristic* principles。 A
transcendental deduction of them cannot be made； such a deduction
being always impossible in the case of ideas； as has been already
shown。
*From the Greek； eurhioko。
We distinguished； in the Transcendental Analytic； the dynamical
principles of the understanding； which are regulative principles of
intuition； from the mathematical； which are constitutive principles of
intuition。 These dynamical laws are； however； constitutive in relation
to experience； inasmuch as they render the conceptions without which
experience could not exist possible a priori。 But the principles of
pure reason cannot be constitutive even in regard to empirical
conceptions； because no sensuous schema corresponding to them can be
discovered； and they cannot therefore have an object in concreto。 Now；
if I grant that they cannot be employed in the sphere of experience；
as constitutive principles； how shall I secure for them employment and
objective validity as regulative principles； and in what way can
they be so employed？
The understanding is the object of reason； as sensibility is the
object of the understanding。 The production of systematic unity in all
the empirical operations of the understanding is the proper occupation
of reason； just as it is the business of the understanding to
connect the various content of phenomena by means of conceptions；
and subject them to empirical laws。 But the operations of the
understanding are； without the schemata of sensibility；
undetermined； and； in the same manner； the unity of reason is
perfectly undetermined as regards the conditions under which； and
the extent to which； the understanding ought to carry the systematic
connection of its conceptions。 But； although it is impossible to
discover in intuition a schema for the complete systematic unity of
all the conceptions of the understanding； there must be some
analogon of this schema。 This analogon is the idea of the maximum of
the division and the connection of our cognition in one principle。 For
we may have a determinate notion of a maximum and an absolutely
perfect； all the restrictive conditions which are connected with an
indeterminate and various content having been abstracted。 Thus the
idea of reason is analogous with a sensuous schema； with this
difference； that the application of the categories to the schema of
reason does not present a cognition of any object （as is the case with
the application of the categories to sensuous schemata）； but merely
provides us with a rule or principle for the systematic unity of the
exercise of the understanding。 Now； as every principle which imposes
upon the exercise of the understanding a priori