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！
can belong to my （i。e。； my own） cognition； and therefore all that
can become an object for me。 This synthetical and a priori
determined unity in relation of perceptions in time is therefore the
rule： 〃All empirical determinations of time must be subject to rules
of the general determination of time〃； and the analogies of
experience； of which we are now about to treat； must be rules of
this nature。
These principles have this peculiarity； that they do not concern
phenomena； and the synthesis of the empirical intuition thereof； but
merely the existence of phenomena and their relation to each other
in regard to this existence。 Now the mode in which we apprehend a
thing in a phenomenon can be determined a priori in such a manner that
the rule of its synthesis can give； that is to say； can produce this a
priori intuition in every empirical example。 But the existence of
phenomena cannot be known a priori； and although we could arrive by
this path at a conclusion of the fact of some existence； we could
not cognize that existence determinately； that is to say； we should be
incapable of anticipating in what respect the empirical intuition of
it would be distinguishable from that of others。
The two principles above mentioned； which I called mathematical；
in consideration of the fact of their authorizing the application of
mathematic phenomena； relate to these phenomena only in regard to
their possibility； and instruct us how phenomena； as far as regards
their intuition or the real in their perception； can be generated
according to the rules of a mathematical synthesis。 Consequently；
numerical quantities； and with them the determination of a
phenomenon as a quantity； can be employed in the one case as well as
in the other。 Thus； for example； out of 200；000 illuminations by the
moon； I might compose and give a priori； that is construct； the degree
of our sensations of the sunlight。 We may therefore entitle these
two principles constitutive。
The case is very different with those principles whose province it
is to subject the existence of phenomena to rules a priori。 For as
existence does not admit of being constructed； it is clear that they
must only concern the relations of existence and be merely
regulative principles。 In this case； therefore； neither axioms nor
anticipations are to be thought of。 Thus； if a perception is given us；
in a certain relation of time to other （although undetermined）
perceptions； we cannot then say a priori； what and how great （in
quantity） the other perception necessarily connected with the former
is； but only how it is connected； quoad its existence； in this given
modus of time。 Analogies in philosophy mean something very different
from that which they represent in mathematics。 In the latter they
are formulae； which enounce the equality of two relations of quantity；
and are always constitutive； so that if two terms of the proportion
are given； the third is also given； that is； can be constructed by the
aid of these formulae。 But in philosophy； analogy is not the
equality of two quantitative but of two qualitative relations。 In this
case； from three given terms； I can give a priori and cognize the
relation to a fourth member； but not this fourth term itself； although
I certainly possess a rule to guide me in the search for this fourth
term in experience； and a mark to assist me in discovering it。 An
analogy of experience is therefore only a rule according to which
unity of experience must arise out of perceptions in respect to
objects （phenomena） not as a constitutive； but merely as a
regulative principle。 The same holds good also of the postulates of
empirical thought in general； which relate to the synthesis of mere
intuition （which concerns the form of phenomena）； the synthesis of
perception （which concerns the matter of phenomena）； and the synthesis
of experience （which concerns the relation of these perceptions）。
For they are only regulative principles； and clearly distinguishable
from the mathematical； which are constitutive； not indeed in regard to
the certainty which both possess a priori； but in the mode of evidence
thereof； consequently also in the manner of demonstration。
But what has been observed of all synthetical propositions； and must
be particularly remarked in this place； is this； that these
analogies possess significance and validity； not as principles of
the transcendental； but only as principles of the empirical use of the
understanding； and their truth can therefore be proved only as such；
and that consequently the phenomena must not be subjoined directly
under the categories； but only under their schemata。 For if the
objects to which those principles must be applied were things in
themselves； it would be quite impossible to cognize aught concerning
them synthetically a priori。 But they are nothing but phenomena； a
complete knowledge of which… a knowledge to which all principles a
priori must at last relate… is the only possible experience。 It
follows that these principles can have nothing else for their aim than
the conditions of the empirical cognition in the unity of synthesis of
phenomena。 But this synthesis is cogitated only in the schema of the
pure conception of the understanding； of whose unity； as that of a
synthesis in general； the category contains the function
unrestricted by any sensuous condition。 These principles will
therefore authorize us to connect phenomena according to an analogy；
with the logical and universal unity of conceptions； and
consequently to employ the categories in the principles themselves；
but in the application of them to experience； we shall use only
their schemata； as the key to their proper application； instead of the
categories； or rather the latter as restricting conditions； under
the title of 〃formulae〃 of the former。
A。 FIRST ANALOGY。
Principle of the Permanence of Substance。
In all changes of phenomena； substance is permanent； and the
quantum thereof in nature is neither increased nor diminished。
PROOF。
All phenomena exist in time； wherein alone as substratum； that is；
as the permanent form of the internal intuition； coexistence and
succession can be represented。 Consequently time； in which all changes
of phenomena must be cogitated； remains and changes not； because it is
that in which succession and coexistence can be represented only as
determinations thereof。 Now； time in itself cannot be an object of
perception。 It follows that in objects of perception； that is； in
phenomena； there must be found a substratum which represents time in
general； and in which all change or coexistence can be perceived by
means of the relation of phenomena to it。 But the substratum of all
reality； that is； of all that pertains to the existence of things；
is substance； all that pertains to existence can be cogitated only
as a determination of substance。 Consequentl