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！
although I maintain that the properties of space and time； in
conformity to which I set both； as the condition of their existence；
abide in my mode of intuition； and not in the objects in themselves。
It would be my own fault； if out of that which I should reckon as
phenomenon； I made mere illusory appearance。* But this will not
happen； because of our principle of the ideality of all sensuous
intuitions。 On the contrary； if we ascribe objective reality to
these forms of representation； it becomes impossible to avoid changing
everything into mere appearance。 For if we regard space and time as
properties； which must be found in objects as things in themselves； as
sine quibus non of the possibility of their existence； and reflect
on the absurdities in which we then find ourselves involved；
inasmuch as we are compelled to admit the existence of two infinite
things； which are nevertheless not substances； nor anything really
inhering in substances； nay； to admit that they are the necessary
conditions of the existence of all things； and moreover； that they
must continue to exist； although all existing things were annihilated…
we cannot blame the good Berkeley for degrading bodies to mere
illusory appearances。 Nay； even our own existence； which would in this
case depend upon the self…existent reality of such a mere nonentity as
time； would necessarily be changed with it into mere appearance… an
absurdity which no one has as yet been guilty of。
*The predicates of the phenomenon can be affixed to the object
itself in relation to our sensuous faculty； for example； the red
colour or the perfume to the rose。 But （illusory） appearance never can
be attributed as a predicate to an object； for this very reason；
that it attributes to this object in itself that which belongs to it
only in relation to our sensuous faculty； or to the subject in
general； e。g。； the two handles which were formerly ascribed to Saturn。
That which is never to be found in the object itself； but always in
the relation of the object to the subject； and which moreover is
inseparable from our representation of the object； we denominate
phenomenon。 Thus the predicates of space and time are rightly
attributed to objects of the senses as such； and in this there is no
illusion。 On the contrary； if I ascribe redness of the rose as a thing
in itself； or to Saturn his handles； or extension to all external
objects； considered as things in themselves； without regarding the
determinate relation of these objects to the subject； and without
limiting my judgement to that relation… then； and then only； arises
illusion。
IV。 In natural theology； where we think of an object… God… which
never can be an object of intuition to us； and even to himself can
never be an object of sensuous intuition； we carefully avoid
attributing to his intuition the conditions of space and time… and
intuition all his cognition must be； and not thought； which always
includes limitation。 But with what right can we do this if we make
them forms of objects as things in themselves； and such； moreover；
as would continue to exist as a priori conditions of the existence
of things； even though the things themselves were annihilated？ For
as conditions of all existence in general； space and time must be
conditions of the existence of the Supreme Being also。 But if we do
not thus make them objective forms of all things； there is no other
way left than to make them subjective forms of our mode of
intuition… external and internal； which is called sensuous； because it
is not primitive； that is； is not such as gives in itself the
existence of the object of the intuition （a mode of intuition which；
so far as we can judge； can belong only to the Creator）； but is
dependent on the existence of the object； is possible； therefore； only
on condition that the representative faculty of the subject is
affected by the object。
It is； moreover； not necessary that we should limit the mode of
intuition in space and time to the sensuous faculty of man。 It may
well be that all finite thinking beings must necessarily in this
respect agree with man （though as to this we cannot decide）； but
sensibility does not on account of this universality cease to be
sensibility； for this very reason； that it is a deduced （intuitus
derivativus）； and not an original （intuitus originarius）； consequently
not an intellectual intuition； and this intuition； as such； for
reasons above mentioned； seems to belong solely to the Supreme
Being； but never to a being dependent； quoad its existence； as well as
its intuition （which its existence determines and limits relatively to
given objects）。 This latter remark； however； must be taken only as
an illustration； and not as any proof of the truth of our
aesthetical theory。
SS 10 Conclusion of the Transcendental Aesthetic。
We have now completely before us one part of the solution of the
grand general problem of transcendental philosophy； namely； the
question： 〃How are synthetical propositions a priori possible？〃 That
is to say； we have shown that we are in possession of pure a priori
intuitions； namely； space and time； in which we find； when in a
judgement a priori we pass out beyond the given conception；
something which is not discoverable in that conception； but is
certainly found a priori in the intuition which corresponds to the
conception； and can be united synthetically with it。 But the
judgements which these pure intuitions enable us to make； never
reach farther than to objects of the senses； and are valid only for
objects of possible experience。
INTRO
SECOND PART。 TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC。
INTRODUCTION。 Idea of a Transcendental Logic。
I。 Of Logic in General。
Our knowledge springs from two main sources in the mind； first of
which is the faculty or power of receiving representations
（receptivity for impressions）； the second is the power of cognizing by
means of these representations （spontaneity in the production of
conceptions）。 Through the first an object is given to us； through
the second； it is； in relation to the representation （which is a
mere determination of the mind）； thought。 Intuition and conceptions
constitute； therefore； the elements of all our knowledge； so that
neither conceptions without an intuition in some way corresponding
to them； nor intuition without conceptions； can afford us a cognition。
Both are either pure or empirical。 They are。 empirical； when sensation
（which presupposes the actual presence of the object） is contained
in them； and pure； when no sensation is mixed with the representation。
Sensations we may call the matter of sensuous cognition。 Pure
intuition consequently contains merely the form under which
something is intuited； and pure conception only the form of the
thought of an object。 Only pure intuitions and pure conceptions are
possible a priori； the empirical only a posteriori。
We apply the t