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！
possible？〃 In other words； how； from the nature of universal human
reason； do those questions arise which pure reason proposes to itself；
and which it is impelled by its own feeling of need to answer as
well as it can？
But as in all the attempts hitherto made to answer the questions
which reason is prompted by its very nature to propose to itself；
for example； whether the world had a beginning； or has existed from
eternity； it has always met with unavoidable contradictions； we must
not rest satisfied with the mere natural disposition of the mind to
metaphysics； that is； with the existence of the faculty of pure
reason； whence； indeed； some sort of metaphysical system always
arises； but it must be possible to arrive at certainty in regard to
the question whether we know or do not know the things of which
metaphysics treats。 We must be able to arrive at a decision on the
subjects of its questions； or on the ability or inability of reason to
form any judgement respecting them； and therefore either to extend
with confidence the bounds of our pure reason； or to set strictly
defined and safe limits to its action。 This last question； which
arises out of the above universal problem； would properly run thus：
〃How is metaphysics possible as a science？〃
Thus； the critique of reason leads at last； naturally and
necessarily； to science； and； on the other hand； the dogmatical use of
reason without criticism leads to groundless assertions； against which
others equally specious can always be set； thus ending unavoidably
in scepticism。
Besides； this science cannot be of great and formidable prolixity；
because it has not to do with objects of reason； the variety of
which is inexhaustible； but merely with Reason herself and her
problems； problems which arise out of her own bosom； and are not
proposed to her by the nature of outward things； but by her own
nature。 And when once Reason has previously become able completely
to understand her own power in regard to objects which she meets
with in experience； it will be easy to determine securely the extent
and limits of her attempted application to objects beyond the confines
of experience。
We may and must； therefore； regard the attempts hitherto made to
establish metaphysical science dogmatically as non…existent。 For
what of analysis； that is； mere dissection of conceptions； is
contained in one or other； is not the aim of； but only a preparation
for metaphysics proper； which has for its object the extension； by
means of synthesis； of our a priori knowledge。 And for this purpose；
mere analysis is of course useless； because it only shows what is
contained in these conceptions； but not how we arrive； a priori； at
them； and this it is her duty to show； in order to be able
afterwards to determine their valid use in regard to all objects of
experience； to all knowledge in general。 But little self…denial；
indeed； is needed to give up these pretensions； seeing the undeniable；
and in the dogmatic mode of procedure； inevitable contradictions of
Reason with herself； have long since ruined the reputation of every
system of metaphysics that has appeared up to this time。 It will
require more firmness to remain undeterred by difficulty from
within； and opposition from without； from endeavouring； by a method
quite opposed to all those hitherto followed； to further the growth
and fruitfulness of a science indispensable to human reason… a science
from which every branch it has borne may be cut away； but whose
roots remain indestructible。
VII。 Idea and Division of a Particular Science； under the
Name of a Critique of Pure Reason。
From all that has been said； there results the idea of a
particular science； which may be called the Critique of Pure Reason。
For reason is the faculty which furnishes us with the principles of
knowledge a priori。 Hence； pure reason is the faculty which contains
the principles of cognizing anything absolutely a priori。 An organon
of pure reason would be a compendium of those principles according
to which alone all pure cognitions a priori can be obtained。 The
completely extended application of such an organon would afford us a
system of pure reason。 As this； however； is demanding a great deal；
and it is yet doubtful whether any extension of our knowledge be
here possible； or； if so； in what cases； we can regard a science of
the mere criticism of pure reason； its sources and limits； as the
propaedeutic to a system of pure reason。 Such a science must not be
called a doctrine； but only a critique of pure reason； and its use； in
regard to speculation； would be only negative； not to enlarge the
bounds of； but to purify； our reason； and to shield it against
error… which alone is no little gain。 I apply the term
transcendental to all knowledge which is not so much occupied with
objects as with the mode of our cognition of these objects； so far
as this mode of cognition is possible a priori。 A system of such
conceptions would be called transcendental philosophy。 But this；
again； is still beyond the bounds of our present essay。 For as such
a science must contain a complete exposition not only of our
synthetical a priori； but of our analytical a priori knowledge； it
is of too wide a range for our present purpose； because we do not
require to carry our analysis any farther than is necessary to
understand； in their full extent； the principles of synthesis a
priori； with which alone we have to do。 This investigation； which we
cannot properly call a doctrine； but only a transcendental critique；
because it aims not at the enlargement； but at the correction and
guidance； of our knowledge； and is to serve as a touchstone of the
worth or worthlessness of all knowledge a priori； is the sole object
of our present essay。 Such a critique is consequently； as far as
possible； a preparation for an organon； and if this new organon should
be found to fail； at least for a canon of pure reason； according to
which the complete system of the philosophy of pure reason； whether it
extend or limit the bounds of that reason； might one day be set
forth both analytically and synthetically。 For that this is
possible； nay； that such a system is not of so great extent as to
preclude the hope of its ever being completed； is evident。 For we have
not here to do with the nature of outward objects； which is
infinite； but solely with the mind； which judges of the nature of
objects； and； again； with the mind only in respect of its cognition
a priori。 And the object of our investigations； as it is not to be
sought without； but； altogether within； ourselves； cannot remain
concealed； and in all probability is limited enough to be completely
surveyed and fairly estimated； according to its worth or
worthlessness。 Still less let the reader here expect a critique of
books and systems of pure reason； our present object is exclusively
a critique of the faculty of pure reason itself。 Only when we make
this