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！
even in possible experience？ Each adopts the plan of meditating on his
idea for the purpose of drawing from the idea； if he can； what is more
than the idea； that is； the reality of the object which it
indicates。 How shall they settle the dispute； since neither is able to
make his assertions directly comprehensible and certain； but must
restrict himself to attacking and confuting those of his opponent？ All
statements enounced by pure reason transcend the conditions of
possible experience； beyond the sphere of which we can discover no
criterion of truth； while they are at the same time framed in
accordance with the laws of the understanding； which are applicable
only to experience； and thus it is the fate of all such speculative
discussions that while the one party attacks the weaker side of his
opponent； he infallibly lays open his own weaknesses。
The critique of pure reason may be regarded as the highest
tribunal for all speculative disputes； for it is not involved in these
disputes； which have an immediate relation to certain objects and
not to the laws of the mind； but is instituted for the purpose of
determining the rights and limits of reason。
Without the control of criticism； reason is； as it were； in a
state of nature； and can only establish its claims and assertions by
war。 Criticism； on the contrary； deciding all questions according to
the fundamental laws of its own institution； secures to us the peace
of law and order； and enables us to discuss all differences in the
more tranquil manner of a legal process。 In the former case；
disputes are ended by victory； which both sides may claim and which is
followed by a hollow armistice； in the latter； by a sentence； which；
as it strikes at the root of all speculative differences； ensures to
all concerned a lasting peace。 The endless disputes of a dogmatizing
reason compel us to look for some mode of arriving at a settled
decision by a critical investigation of reason itself； just as
Hobbes maintains that the state of nature is a state of injustice
and violence； and that we must leave it and submit ourselves to the
constraint of law； which indeed limits individual freedom； but only
that it may consist with the freedom of others and with the common
good of all。
This freedom will； among other things； permit of our openly
stating the difficulties and doubts which we are ourselves unable to
solve； without being decried on that account as turbulent and
dangerous citizens。 This privilege forms part of the native rights
of human reason； which recognizes no other judge than the universal
reason of humanity； and as this reason is the source of all progress
and improvement； such a privilege is to be held sacred and inviolable。
It is unwise； moreover； to denounce as dangerous any bold assertions
against； or rash attacks upon； an opinion which is held by the largest
and most moral class of the community； for that would be giving them
an importance which they do not deserve。 When I hear that the
freedom of the will； the hope of a future life； and the existence of
God have been overthrown by the arguments of some able writer； I
feel a strong desire to read his book； for I expect that he will add
to my knowledge and impart greater clearness and distinctness to my
views by the argumentative power shown in his writings。 But I am
perfectly certain； even before I have opened the book； that he has not
succeeded in a single point； not because I believe I am in
possession of irrefutable demonstrations of these important
propositions； but because this transcendental critique； which has
disclosed to me the power and the limits of pure reason； has fully
convinced me that； as it is insufficient to establish the affirmative；
it is as powerless； and even more so； to assure us of the truth of the
negative answer to these questions。 From what source does this
free…thinker derive his knowledge that there is； for example； no
Supreme Being？ This proposition lies out of the field of possible
experience； and； therefore； beyond the limits of human cognition。
But I would not read at； all the answer which the dogmatical
maintainer of the good cause makes to his opponent； because I know
well beforehand； that he will merely attack the fallacious grounds
of his adversary； without being able to establish his own
assertions。 Besides； a new illusory argument； in the construction of
which talent and acuteness are shown； is suggestive of new ideas and
new trains of reasoning； and in this respect the old and everyday
sophistries are quite useless。 Again； the dogmatical opponent of
religion gives employment to criticism； and enables us to test and
correct its principles； while there is no occasion for anxiety in
regard to the influence and results of his reasoning。
But； it will be said； must we not warn the youth entrusted to
academical care against such writings； must we not preserve them
from the knowledge of these dangerous assertions； until their
judgement is ripened； or rather until the doctrines which we wish to
inculcate are so firmly rooted in their minds as to withstand all
attempts at instilling the contrary dogmas； from whatever quarter they
may come？
If we are to confine ourselves to the dogmatical procedure in the
sphere of pure reason； and find ourselves unable to settle such
disputes otherwise than by becoming a party in them； and setting
counter…assertions against the statements advanced by our opponents；
there is certainly no plan more advisable for the moment； but； at
the same time； none more absurd and inefficient for the future； than
this retaining of the youthful mind under guardianship for a time； and
thus preserving it… for so long at least… from seduction into error。
But when； at a later period； either curiosity； or the prevalent
fashion of thought places such writings in their hands； will the
so…called convictions of their youth stand firm？ The young thinker；
who has in his armoury none but dogmatical weapons with which to
resist the attacks of his opponent； and who cannot detect the latent
dialectic which lies in his own opinions as well as in those of the
opposite party； sees the advance of illusory arguments and grounds
of proof which have the advantage of novelty； against as illusory
grounds of proof destitute of this advantage； and which； perhaps；
excite the suspicion that the natural credulity of his youth has
been abused by his instructors。 He thinks he can find no better
means of showing that he has out grown the discipline of his
minority than by despising those well…meant warnings； and； knowing
no system of thought but that of dogmatism； he drinks deep draughts of
the poison that is to sap the principles in which his early years were
trained。
Exactly the opposite of the system here recommended ought to be
pursued in academical instruction。 This can only be effected； however；
by a thorough training in the critical investigation of pure reason。
For； in order to bring