友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!
the critique of judgement-第5部分
快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完,想下次继续接着阅读,可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能!
realizing the object (by the intervention of means; therefore) or else are addressed to what is quite impossible; as; for example; to undo the past (O mihi praeteritos; etc。) or; to be able to annihilate the interval that; with intolerable delay; divides us from the wished for moment。 …Now; conscious as we are in such fantastic desires of the inefficiency of our representations (or even of their futility); as causes of their objects; there is still involved in every wish a reference of the same as cause; and therefore the representation of its causality; and this is especially discernible where the wish; as longing; is an affection。 For such affections; since they dilate the heart and render it inert and thus exhaust its powers; show that a strain is kept on being exerted and re…exerted on these powers by the representations; but that the mind is allowed continually to relapse and get languid upon recognition of the impossibility before it。 Even prayers for the aversion of great; and; so far as we can see; inevitable evils; and many superstitious means for attaining ends impossible of attainment by natural means; prove the causal reference of representations to their objects…a causality which not even the consciousness of inefficiency for producing the effect can deter from straining towards it。 But why our nature should be furnished with a propensity to consciously vain desires is a teleological problem of anthropology。 It would seem that were we not to be determined to the exertion of our power before we had assured ourselves of the efficiency of our faculty for producing an object; our power would remain to a large extent unused。 For as a rule we only first learn to know our powers by making trial of them。 This deceit of vain desires is therefore only the result of a beneficent disposition in our nature。
Hence; despite the fact of philosophy being only divisible into two principal parts; the theoretical and the practical; and despite the fact of all that we may have to say of the special principles of judgement having to be assigned to its theoretical part; i。e。; to rational cognition according to concepts of nature: still the Critique of Pure Reason; which must settle this whole question before the above system is taken in hand; so as to substantiate its possibility; consists of three parts: the Critique of pure understanding; of pure judgement; and of pure reason; which faculties are called pure on the ground of their being legislative a priori。
IV。 Judgement as a Faculty by which Laws are prescribed a priori。
Judgement in general is the faculty of thinking the particular as contained under the universal。 If the universal (the rule; principle; or law) is given; then the judgement which subsumes the particular under it is determinant。 This is so even where such a judgement is transcendental and; as such; provides the conditions a priori in conformity with which alone subsumption under that universal can be effected。 If; however; only the particular is given and the universal has to be found for it; then the judgement is simply reflective。 The determinant judgement determines under universal transcendental laws furnished by understanding and is subsumptive only; the law is marked out for it a priori; and it has no need to devise a law for its own guidance to enable it to subordinate the particular in nature to the universal。 But there are such manifold forms of nature; so many modifications; as it were; of the universal transcendental concepts of nature; left undetermined by the laws furnished by pure understanding a priori as above mentioned; and for the reason that these laws only touch the general possibility of a nature (as an object of sense); that there must needs also be laws in this behalf。 These laws; being empirical; may be contingent as far as the light of our understanding goes; but still; if they are to be called laws (as the concept of a nature requires); they must be regarded as necessary on a principle; unknown though it be to us; of the unity of the manifold。 The reflective judgement which is compelled to ascend from the particular in nature to the universal stands; therefore; in need of a principle。 This principle it cannot borrow from experience; because what it has to do is to establish just the unity of all empirical principles under higher; though likewise empirical; principles; and thence the possibility of the systematic subordination of higher and lower。 Such a transcendental principle; therefore; the reflective judgement can only give as a law from and to itself。 It cannot derive it from any other quarter (as it would then be a determinant judgement)。 Nor can it prescribe it to nature; for reflection on the laws of nature adjusts itself to nature; and not nature to the conditions according to which we strive to obtain a concept of it…a concept that is quite contingent in respect of these conditions。 Now the principle sought can only be this: as universal laws of nature have their ground in our understanding; which prescribes them to nature (though only according to the universal concept of it as nature); particular empirical laws must be regarded; in respect of that which is left undetermined in them by these universal laws; according to a unity such as they would have if an understanding (though it be not ours) had supplied them for the benefit of our cognitive faculties; so as to render possible a system of experience according to particular natural laws。 This is not to be taken as implying that such an understanding must be actually assumed (for it is only the reflective judgement which avails itself of this idea as a principle for the purpose of reflection and not for determining anything); but this faculty rather gives by this means a law to itself alone and not to nature。 Now the concept of an object; so far as it contains at the same time the ground of the actuality of this object; is called its end; and the agreement of a thing with that constitution of things which is only possible according to ends; is called the finality of its form。 Accordingly the principle of judgement; in respect of the form of the things of nature under empirical laws generally; is the finality of nature in its multiplicity。 In other words; by this concept nature is represented as if an understanding contained the ground of the unity of the manifold of its empirical laws。 The finality of nature is; therefore; a particular a priori concept; which bas its origin solely in the reflective judgement。 For we cannot ascribe to the products of nature anything like a reference of nature in them to ends; but we can only make use of this concept to reflect upon them in respect of the nexus of phenomena in nature…a nexus given according to empirical laws。 Furthermore; this concept is entirely different from practical finality (in human art or even morals); though it is doubtless thought after this analogy。
V。 The Principle of the formal finality of Nature is a transcendental Principle of Judgement。
A transcendental principle is one through which we represent a priori the universal condition under which alone things can become objects of our cognition ge
快捷操作: 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!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!