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！
conceptions and judgements。 If pure reason does apply to objects and
the intuition of them； it does so not immediately； but mediately…
through the understanding and its judgements； which have a direct
relation to the senses and their intuition； for the purpose of
determining their objects。 The unity of reason is therefore not the
unity of a possible experience； but is essentially different from this
unity； which is that of the understanding。 That everything which
happens has a cause； is not a principle cognized and prescribed by
reason。 This principle makes the unity of experience possible and
borrows nothing from reason； which； without a reference to possible
experience； could never have produced by means of mere conceptions any
such synthetical unity。
2。 Reason； in its logical use； endeavours to discover the general
condition of its judgement （the conclusion）； and a syllogism is itself
nothing but a judgement by means of the subsumption of its condition
under a general rule （the major）。 Now as this rule may itself be
subjected to the same process of reason； and thus the condition of the
condition be sought （by means of a prosyllogism） as long as the
process can be continued； it is very manifest that the peculiar
principle of reason in its logical use is to find for the
conditioned cognition of the understanding the unconditioned whereby
the unity of the former is completed。
But this logical maxim cannot be a principle of pure reason；
unless we admit that； if the conditioned is given； the whole series of
conditions subordinated to one another… a series which is consequently
itself unconditioned… is also given； that is； contained in the
object and its connection。
But this principle of pure reason is evidently synthetical； for；
analytically； the conditioned certainly relates to some condition； but
not to the unconditioned。 From this principle also there must
originate different synthetical propositions； of which the pure
understanding is perfectly ignorant； for it has to do only with
objects of a possible experience； the cognition and synthesis of which
is always conditioned。 The unconditioned； if it does really exist；
must be especially considered in regard to the determinations which
distinguish it from whatever is conditioned； and will thus afford us
material for many a priori synthetical propositions。
The principles resulting from this highest principle of pure
reason will； however； be transcendent in relation to phenomena； that
is to say； it will be impossible to make any adequate empirical use of
this principle。 It is therefore completely different from all
principles of the understanding； the use made of which is entirely
immanent； their object and purpose being merely the possibility of
experience。 Now our duty in the transcendental dialectic is as
follows。 To discover whether the principle that the series of
conditions （in the synthesis of phenomena； or of thought in general）
extends to the unconditioned is objectively true； or not； what
consequences result therefrom affecting the empirical use of the
understanding； or rather whether there exists any such objectively
valid proposition of reason； and whether it is not； on the contrary； a
merely logical precept which directs us to ascend perpetually to still
higher conditions； to approach completeness in the series of them； and
thus to introduce into our cognition the highest possible unity of
reason。 We must ascertain； I say； whether this requirement of reason
has not been regarded； by a misunderstanding； as a transcendental
principle of pure reason； which postulates a thorough completeness
in the series of conditions in objects themselves。 We must show；
moreover； the misconceptions and illusions that intrude into
syllogisms； the major proposition of which pure reason has supplied… a
proposition which has perhaps more of the character of a petitio
than of a postulatum… and that proceed from experience upwards to
its conditions。 The solution of these problems is our task in
transcendental dialectic； which we are about to expose even at its
source； that lies deep in human reason。 We shall divide it into two
parts； the first of which will treat of the transcendent conceptions
of pure reason； the second of transcendent and dialectical syllogisms。
BOOK I。
OF THE CONCEPTIONS OF PURE REASON。
The conceptions of pure reason… we do not here speak of the
possibility of them… are not obtained by reflection； but by
inference or conclusion。 The conceptions of understanding are also
cogitated a priori antecedently to experience； and render it possible；
but they contain nothing but the unity of reflection upon phenomena；
in so far as these must necessarily belong to a possible empirical
consciousness。 Through them alone are cognition and the
determination of an object possible。 It is from them； accordingly；
that we receive material for reasoning； and antecedently to them we
possess no a priori conceptions of objects from which they might be
deduced； On the other hand； the sole basis of their objective
reality consists in the necessity imposed on them； as containing the
intellectual form of all experience； of restricting their
application and influence to the sphere of experience。
But the term； conception of reason； or rational conception； itself
indicates that it does not confine itself within the limits of
experience； because its object…matter is a cognition； of which every
empirical cognition is but a part… nay； the whole of possible
experience may be itself but a part of it… a cognition to which no
actual experience ever fully attains； although it does always
pertain to it。 The aim of rational conceptions is the comprehension；
as that of the conceptions of understanding is the understanding of
perceptions。 If they contain the unconditioned； they relate to that to
which all experience is subordinate； but which is never itself an
object of experience… that towards which reason tends in all its
conclusions from experience； and by the standard of which it estimates
the degree of their empirical use； but which is never itself an
element in an empirical synthesis。 If； notwithstanding； such
conceptions possess objective validity； they may be called conceptus
ratiocinati （conceptions legitimately concluded）； in cases where
they do not； they have been admitted on account of having the
appearance of being correctly concluded； and may be called conceptus
ratiocinantes （sophistical conceptions）。 But as this can only be
sufficiently demonstrated in that part of our treatise which relates
to the dialectical conclusions of reason； we shall omit any
consideration of it in this place。 As we called the pure conceptions
of the understanding categories； we shall also distinguish those of
pure reason by a new name and call them transcendental ideas。 These
terms； however； we must in the first place explain and justify。