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！
that is to say； it is the notion of that it that it is possible； nor
that it is impossible； inasmuch as we do not know of any mode of
intuition besides the sensuous； or of any other sort of conceptions
than the categories… a mode of intuition and a kind of conception
neither of which is applicable to a non…sensuous object。 We are on
this account incompetent to extend the sphere of our objects of
thought beyond the conditions of our sensibility； and to assume the
existence of objects of pure thought； that is； of noumena； inasmuch as
these have no true positive signification。 For it must be confessed of
the categories that they are not of themselves sufficient for the
cognition of things in themselves and； without the data of
sensibility； are mere subjective forms of the unity of the
understanding。 Thought is certainly not a product of the senses； and
in so far is not limited by them； but it does not therefore follow
that it may be employed purely and without the intervention of
sensibility； for it would then be without reference to an object。
And we cannot call a noumenon an object of pure thought； for the
representation thereof is but the problematical conception of an
object for a perfectly different intuition and a perfectly different
understanding from ours； both of which are consequently themselves
problematical。 The conception of a noumenon is therefore not the
conception of an object； but merely a problematical conception
inseparably connected with the limitation of our sensibility。 That
is to say； this conception contains the answer to the question： 〃Are
there objects quite unconnected with； and independent of； our
intuition？〃… a question to which only an indeterminate answer can be
given。 That answer is： 〃Inasmuch as sensuous intuition does not
apply to all things without distinction； there remains room for
other and different objects。〃 The existence of these problematical
objects is therefore not absolutely denied； in the absence of a
determinate conception of them； but； as no category is valid in
respect of them； neither must they be admitted as objects for our
understanding。
Understanding accordingly limits sensibility； without at the same
time enlarging its own field。 While； moreover； it forbids
sensibility to apply its forms and modes to things in themselves and
restricts it to the sphere of phenomena； it cogitates an object in
itself； only； however； as a transcendental object； which is the
cause of a phenomenon （consequently not itself a phenomenon）； and
which cannot be thought either as a quantity or as reality； or as
substance （because these conceptions always require sensuous forms
in which to determine an object）… an object； therefore； of which we
are quite unable to say whether it can be met with in ourselves or out
of us； whether it would be annihilated together with sensibility；
or； if this were taken away； would continue to exist。 If we wish to
call this object a noumenon； because the representation of it is
non…sensuous； we are at liberty to do so。 But as we can apply to it
none of the conceptions of our understanding； the representation is
for us quite void； and is available only for the indication of the
limits of our sensuous intuition； thereby leaving at the same time
an empty space； which we are competent to fill by the aid neither of
possible experience； nor of the pure understanding。
The critique of the pure understanding； accordingly； does not permit
us to create for ourselves a new field of objects beyond those which
are presented to us as phenomena； and to stray into intelligible
worlds； nay； it does not even allow us to endeavour to form so much as
a conception of them。 The specious error which leads to this… and
which is a perfectly excusable one… lies in the fact that the
employment of the understanding； contrary to its proper purpose and
destination； is made transcendental； and objects； that is； possible
intuitions； are made to regulate themselves according to
conceptions； instead of the conceptions arranging themselves according
to the intuitions； on which alone their own objective validity
rests。 Now the reason of this again is that apperception； and with
it thought； antecedes all possible determinate arrangement of
representations。 Accordingly we think something in general and
determine it on the one hand sensuously； but； on the other；
distinguish the general and in abstracto represented object from
this particular mode of intuiting it。 In this case there remains a
mode of determining the object by mere thought； which is really but
a logical form without content； which； however； seems to us to be a
mode of the existence of the object in itself （noumenon）； without
regard to intuition which is limited to our senses。
Before ending this transcendental analytic； we must make an
addition； which； although in itself of no particular importance； seems
to be necessary to the completeness of the system。 The highest
conception； with which a transcendental philosophy commonly begins； is
the division into possible and impossible。 But as all division
presupposes a divided conception； a still higher one must exist； and
this is the conception of an object in general… problematically
understood and without its being decided whether it is something or
nothing。 As the categories are the only conceptions which apply to
objects in general； the distinguishing of an object； whether it is
something or nothing； must proceed according to the order and
direction of the categories。
1。 To the categories of quantity； that is； the conceptions of all；
many； and one； the conception which annihilates all； that is； the
conception of none； is opposed。 And thus the object of a conception；
to which no intuition can be found to correspond； is = nothing。 That
is； it is a conception without an object （ens rationis）； like noumena；
which cannot be considered possible in the sphere of reality； though
they must not therefore be held to be impossible… or like certain
new fundamental forces in matter； the existence of which is
cogitable without contradiction； though； as examples from experience
are not forthcoming； they must not be regarded as possible。
2。 Reality is something； negation is nothing； that is； a
conception of the absence of an object； as cold； a shadow （nihil
privativum）。
3。 The mere form of intuition； without substance； is in itself no
object； but the merely formal condition of an object （as
phenomenon）； as pure space and pure time。 These are certainly
something； as forms of intuition； but are not themselves objects which
are intuited （ens imaginarium）。
4。 The object of a conception which is self…contradictory； is
nothing； because the conception is nothing… is impossible； as a figure
composed of two straight lines （nihil negativum）。
The table of this division of the conception of nothing （the
corresponding division of the conception of something does not require
special description） m