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！
present them to the understanding a priori。 But if we once have a
completely （and unconditionally） given condition； there is no
further necessity； in proceeding with the series； for a conception
of reason； for the understanding takes of itself every step
downward； from the condition to the conditioned。 Thus the
transcendental ideas are available only for ascending in the series of
conditions； till we reach the unconditioned； that is； principles。 As
regards descending to the conditioned； on the other hand； we find that
there is a widely extensive logical use which reason makes of the laws
of the understanding； but that a transcendental use thereof is
impossible； and that when we form an idea of the absolute totality
of such a synthesis； for example； of the whole series of all future
changes in the world； this idea is a mere ens rationis； an arbitrary
fiction of thought； and not a necessary presupposition of reason。
For the possibility of the conditioned presupposes the totality of its
conditions； but not of its consequences。 Consequently； this conception
is not a transcendental idea… and it is with these alone that we are
at present occupied。
Finally； it is obvious that there exists among the transcendental
ideas a certain connection and unity； and that pure reason； by means
of them； collects all its cognitions into one system。 From the
cognition of self to the cognition of the world； and through these
to the supreme being； the progression is so natural； that it seems
to resemble the logical march of reason from the premisses to the
conclusion。* Now whether there lies unobserved at the foundation of
these ideas an analogy of the same kind as exists between the
logical and transcendental procedure of reason； is another of those
questions； the answer to which we must not expect till we arrive at
a more advanced stage in our inquiries。 In this cursory and
preliminary view； we have； meanwhile； reached our aim。 For we have
dispelled the ambiguity which attached to the transcendental
conceptions of reason； from their being commonly mixed up with other
conceptions in the systems of philosophers； and not properly
distinguished from the conceptions of the understanding； we have
exposed their origin and； thereby； at the same time their
determinate number； and presented them in a systematic connection； and
have thus marked out and enclosed a definite sphere for pure reason。
*The science of Metaphysics has for the proper object of its
inquiries only three grand ideas： GOD； FREEDOM； and IMMORTALITY； and
it aims at showing； that the second conception； conjoined with the
first； must lead to the third； as a necessary conclusion。 All the
other subjects with which it occupies itself； are merely means for the
attainment and realization of these ideas。 It does not require these
ideas for the construction of a science of nature； but； on the
contrary； for the purpose of passing beyond the sphere of nature。 A
complete insight into and comprehension of them would render Theology；
Ethics； and； through the conjunction of both； Religion； solely
dependent on the speculative faculty of reason。 In a systematic
representation of these ideas the above…mentioned arrangement… the
synthetical one… would be the most suitable； but in the
investigation which must necessarily precede it； the analytical； which
reverses this arrangement； would be better adapted to our purpose；
as in it we should proceed from that which experience immediately
presents to us… psychology； to cosmology； and thence to theology。
BOOK II。
OF THE DIALECTICAL PROCEDURE OF PURE REASON。
It may be said that the object of a merely transcendental idea is
something of which we have no conception； although the idea may be a
necessary product of reason according to its original laws。 For； in
fact； a conception of an object that is adequate to the idea given
by reason； is impossible。 For such an object must be capable of
being presented and intuited in a Possible experience。 But we should
express our meaning better； and with less risk of being misunderstood；
if we said that we can have no knowledge of an object； which perfectly
corresponds to an idea； although we may possess a problematical
conception thereof。
Now the transcendental （subjective） reality at least of the pure
conceptions of reason rests upon the fact that we are led to such
ideas by a necessary procedure of reason。 There must therefore be
syllogisms which contain no empirical premisses； and by means of which
we conclude from something that we do know； to something of which we
do not even possess a conception； to which we； nevertheless； by an
unavoidable illusion； ascribe objective reality。 Such arguments are；
as regards their result； rather to be termed sophisms than syllogisms；
although indeed； as regards their origin； they are very well
entitled to the latter name； inasmuch as they are not fictions or
accidental products of reason； but are necessitated by its very
nature。 They are sophisms； not of men； but of pure reason herself；
from which the Wisest cannot free himself。 After long labour he may be
able to guard against the error； but he can never be thoroughly rid of
the illusion which continually mocks and misleads him。
Of these dialectical arguments there are three kinds；
corresponding to the number of the ideas which their conclusions
present。 In the argument or syllogism of the first class； I
conclude； from the transcendental conception of the subject contains
no manifold； the absolute unity of the subject itself； of which I
cannot in this manner attain to a conception。 This dialectical
argument I shall call the transcendental paralogism。 The second
class of sophistical arguments is occupied with the transcendental
conception of the absolute totality of the series of conditions for
a given phenomenon； and I conclude； from the fact that I have always a
self…contradictory conception of the unconditioned synthetical unity
of the series upon one side； the truth of the opposite unity； of which
I have nevertheless no conception。 The condition of reason in these
dialectical arguments； I shall term the antinomy of pure reason。
Finally； according to the third kind of sophistical argument； I
conclude； from the totality of the conditions of thinking objects in
general； in so far as they can be given； the absolute synthetical
unity of all conditions of the possibility of things in general；
that is； from things which I do not know in their mere
transcendental conception； I conclude a being of all beings which I
know still less by means of a transcendental conception； and of
whose unconditioned necessity I can form no conception whatever。
This dialectical argument I shall call the ideal of pure reason。
CHAPTER I。 Of the Paralogisms of Pure Reason。
The logical paralogism consists in the falsity of an argument in
respect of its form； be the content what it may。 But a