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！
is substance； all that pertains to existence can be cogitated only
as a determination of substance。 Consequently； the permanent； in
relation to which alone can all relations of time in phenomena be
determined； is substance in the world of phenomena； that is； the
real in phenomena； that which； as the substratum of all change；
remains ever the same。 Accordingly； as this cannot change in
existence； its quantity in nature can neither be increased nor
diminished。
Our apprehension of the manifold in a phenomenon is always
successive； is Consequently always changing。 By it alone we could；
therefore； never determine whether this manifold； as an object of
experience； is coexistent or successive； unless it had for a
foundation something fixed and permanent； of the existence of which
all succession and coexistence are nothing but so many modes （modi
of time）。 Only in the permanent； then； are relations of time
possible （for simultaneity and succession are the only relations in
time）； that is to say； the permanent is the substratum of our
empirical representation of time itself； in which alone all
determination of time is possible。 Permanence is； in fact； just
another expression for time； as the abiding correlate of all existence
of phenomena； and of all change； and of all coexistence。 For change
does not affect time itself； but only the phenomena in time （just as
coexistence cannot be regarded as a modus of time itself； seeing
that in time no parts are coexistent； but all successive）。 If we
were to attribute succession to time itself； we should be obliged to
cogitate another time； in which this succession would be possible。
It is only by means of the permanent that existence in different parts
of the successive series of time receives a quantity； which we entitle
duration。 For in mere succession； existence is perpetually vanishing
and recommencing； and therefore never has even the least quantity。
Without the permanent； then； no relation in time is possible。 Now；
time in itself is not an object of perception； consequently the
permanent in phenomena must be regarded as the substratum of all
determination of time； and consequently also as the condition of the
possibility of all synthetical unity of perceptions； that is； of
experience； and all existence and all change in time can only be
regarded as a mode in the existence of that which abides unchangeably。
Therefore； in all phenomena； the permanent is the object in itself；
that is； the substance （phenomenon）； but all that changes or can
change belongs only to the mode of the existence of this substance
or substances； consequently to its determinations。
I find that in all ages not only the philosopher； but even the
common understanding； has preposited this permanence as a substratum
of all change in phenomena； indeed； I am compelled to believe that
they will always accept this as an indubitable fact。 Only the
philosopher expresses himself in a more precise and definite manner；
when he says： 〃In all changes in the world； the substance remains； and
the accidents alone are changeable。〃 But of this decidedly synthetical
proposition； I nowhere meet with even an attempt at proof； nay； it
very rarely has the good fortune to stand； as it deserves to do； at
the head of the pure and entirely a priori laws of nature。 In truth；
the statement that substance is permanent； is tautological。 For this
very permanence is the ground on which we apply the category of
substance to the phenomenon； and we should have been obliged to
prove that in all phenomena there is something permanent； of the
existence of which the changeable is nothing but a determination。
But because a proof of this nature cannot be dogmatical； that is；
cannot be drawn from conceptions； inasmuch as it concerns a
synthetical proposition a priori； and as philosophers never
reflected that such propositions are valid only in relation to
possible experience； and therefore cannot be proved except by means of
a deduction of the possibility of experience； it is no wonder that
while it has served as the foundation of all experience （for we feel
the need of it in empirical cognition）； it has never been supported by
proof。
A philosopher was asked： 〃What is the weight of smoke？〃 He answered：
〃Subtract from the weight of the burnt wood the weight of the
remaining ashes； and you will have the weight of the smoke。〃 Thus he
presumed it to be incontrovertible that even in fire the matter
（substance） does not perish； but that only the form of it undergoes
a change。 In like manner was the saying： 〃From nothing comes nothing；〃
only another inference from the principle or permanence； or rather
of the ever…abiding existence of the true subject in phenomena。 For if
that in the phenomenon which we call substance is to be the proper
substratum of all determination of time； it follows that all existence
in past as well as in future time； must be determinable by means of it
alone。 Hence we are entitled to apply the term substance to a
phenomenon； only because we suppose its existence in all time； a
notion which the word permanence does not fully express； as it seems
rather to be referable to future time。 However； the internal necessity
perpetually to be； is inseparably connected with the necessity
always to have been； and so the expression may stand as it is。
〃Gigni de nihilo nihil； in nihilum nil posse reverti；〃* are two
propositions which the ancients never parted； and which people
nowadays sometimes mistakenly disjoin； because they imagine that the
propositions apply to objects as things in themselves； and that the
former might be inimical to the dependence （even in respect of its
substance also） of the world upon a supreme cause。 But this
apprehension is entirely needless； for the question in this case is
only of phenomena in the sphere of experience； the unity of which
never could be possible； if we admitted the possibility that new
things （in respect of their substance） should arise。 For in that case；
we should lose altogether that which alone can represent the unity
of time； to wit； the identity of the substratum； as that through which
alone all change possesses complete and thorough unity。 This
permanence is； however； nothing but the manner in which we represent
to ourselves the existence of things in the phenomenal world。
*＇Persius； Satirae； iii。83…84。 〃Nothing can be produced from
nothing； nothing can be returned into nothing。〃＇
The determinations of a substance； which are only particular modes
of its existence； are called accidents。 They are always real；
because they concern the existence of substance （negations are only
determinations； which express the non…existence of something in the
substance）。 Now； if to this real in the substance we ascribe a
particular existence （for example； to motion as an accident of
matter）； this existence is called inherence； in contradistinction to
the existence of substance； which we call subsistence