the critique of judgement-第6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！



　　A　transcendental　principle　is　one　through　which　we　represent　a　priori　the　universal　condition　under　which　alone　things　can　become　objects　of　our　cognition　generally。　A　principle；　on　the　other　band；　is　called　metaphysical　where　it　represents　a　priori　the　condition　under　which　alone　objects　whose　concept　has　to　be　given　empirically　may　become　further　determined　a　priori。　Thus　the　principle　of　the　cognition　of　bodies　as　substances；　and　as　changeable　substances；　is　transcendental　where　the　statement　is　that　their　change　must　have　a　cause：　but　it　is　metaphysical　where　it　asserts　that　their　change　must　have　an　external　cause。　For；　in　the　first　case；　bodies　need　only　be　thought　through　ontological　predicates　（pure　concepts　of　understanding）　e。g。；　as　substance；　to　enable　the　proposition　to　be　cognized　a　priori；　whereas；　in　the　second　case；　the　empirical　concept　of　a　body　（as　a　movable　thing　in　space）　must　be　introduced　to　support　the　proposition；　although；　once　this　is　done；　it　may　be　seen　quite　a　priori　that　the　latter　predicate　（movement　only　by　means　of　an　external　cause）　applies　to　body。　In　this　way；　as　I　shall　show　presently；　the　principle　of　the　finality　of　nature　（in　the　multiplicity　of　its　empirical　laws）　is　a　transcendental　principle。　For　the　concept　of　objects；　regarded　as　standing　under　this　principle；　is　only　the　pure　concept　of　objects　of　possible　empirical　cognition　generally；　and　involves　nothing　empirical。　On　the　other　band；　the　principle　of　practical　finality；　implied　in　the　idea　of　the　determination　of　a　free　will；　would　be　a　metaphysical　principle；　because　the　concept　of　a　faculty　of　desire；　as　will；　has　to　be　given　empirically；　i。e。；　is　not　included　among　transcendental　predicates。　But　both　these　principles　are；　none　the　less；　not　empirical；　but　a　priori　principles；　because　no　further　experience　is　required　for　the　synthesis　of　the　predicate　with　the　empirical　concept　of　the　subject　of　their　judgements；　but　it　may　be　apprehended　quite　a　priori。　　　That　the　concept　of　a　finality　of　nature　belongs　to　transcendental　principles　is　abundantly　evident　from　the　maxims　of　judgement　upon　which　we　rely　a　priori　in　the　investigation　of　nature；　and　which　yet　have　to　do　with　no　more　than　the　possibility　of　experience；　and　consequently　of　the　knowledge　of　nature…but　of　nature　not　merely　in　a　general　way；　but　as　determined　by　a　manifold　of　particular　laws。　These　maxims　crop　up　frequently　enough　in　the　course　of　this　science；　though　only　in　a　scattered　way。　They　are　aphorisms　of　metaphysical　wisdom；　making　their　appearance　in　a　number　of　rules　the　necessity　of　which　cannot　be　demonstrated　from　concepts。　〃Nature　takes　the　shortest　way　（lex　parsimoniae）；　yet　it　makes　no　leap；　either　in　the　sequence　of　its　changes；　or　in　the　juxtaposition　of　specifically　different　forms　（lex　continui　in　natura）；　its　vast　variety　in　empirical　laws　is　for　all　that；　unity　under　a　few　principles　（principia　praeter　necessitatem　non　sunt　multiplicanda）〃；　and　so　forth。　　　If　we　propose　to　assign　the　origin　of　these　elementary　rules；　and　attempt　to　do　so　on　psychological　lines；　we　go　straight　in　the　teeth　of　their　sense。　For　they　tell　us；　not　what　happens；　i。e。；　according　to　what　rule　our　powers　of　judgement　actually　discharge　their　functions；　and　how　we　judge；　but　how　we　ought　to　judge；　and　we　cannot　get　this　logical　objective　necessity　where　the　principles　are　merely　empirical。　Hence　the　finality　of　nature　for　our　cognitive　faculties　and　their　employment；　which　manifestly　radiates　from　them；　is　a　transcendental　principle　of　judgements；　and　so　needs　also　a　transcendental　deduction；　by　means　of　which　the　ground　for　this　mode　of　judging　must　be　traced　to　the　a　priori　sources　of　knowledge。　　　Now；　looking　at　the　grounds　of　the　possibility　of　an　experience；　the　first　thing；　of　course；　that　meets　us　is　something　necessary…namely；　the　universal　laws　apart　from　which　nature　in　general　（as　an　object　of　sense）　cannot　be　thought。　These　rest　on　the　categories；　applied　to　the　formal　conditions　of　all　intuition　possible　for　us；　so　far　as　it　is　also　given　a　priori。　Under　these　laws；　judgement　is　determinant；　for　it　bas　nothing　else　to　do　than　to　subsume　under　given　laws。　For　instance；　understanding　says：　all　change　has　its　cause　（universal　law　of　nature）；　transcendental　judgement　has　nothing　further　to　do　than　to　furnish　a　priori　the　condition　of　subsumption　under　the　concept　of　understanding　placed　before　it：　this　we　get　in　the　succession　of　the　determinations　of　one　and　the　same　thing。　Now　for　nature　in　general；　as　an　object　of　possible　experience；　that　law　is　cognized　as　absolutely　necessary。　But　besides　this　formal　time…condition；　the　objects　of　empirical　cognition　are　determined；　or；　so　far　as　we　can　judge　a　priori；　are　determinable；　in　divers　ways；　so　that　specifically　differentiated　natures；　over　and　above　what　they　have　in　common　as　things　of　nature　in　general；　are　further　capable　of　being　causes　in　an　infinite　variety　of　ways；　and　each　of　these　modes　must；　on　the　concept　of　a　cause　in　general；　have　its　rule；　which　is　a　law；　and；　consequently；　imports　necessity：　although　owing　to　the　constitution　and　limitations　of　our　faculties　of　cognition　we　may　entirely　fail　to　see　this　necessity。　Accordingly；　in　respect　of　nature's　merely　empirical　laws；　we　must　think　in　nature　a　possibility　of　an　endless　multiplicity　of　empirical　laws；　which　yet　are　contingent　so　far　as　our　insight　goes；　i。e。；　cannot　be　cognized　a　priori。　In　respect　of　these　we　estimate　the　unity　of　nature　according　to　empirical　laws；　and　the　possibility　of　the　unity　of　experience；　as　a　system　according　to　empirical　laws；　to　be　contingent。　But；　now；　such　a　unity　is　one　which　must　be　necessarily　presupposed　and　assumed；　as　otherwise　we　should　not　have　a　thoroughgoing　connection　of　empirical　cognition　in　a　whole　of　experience。　For　the　universal　laws　of　nature；　while　providing；　certainly；　for　such　a　connection　among　things　generically；　as　things　of　nature　in　general；　do　not　do　so　for　them　specifically　as　such　particular　things　of　nature。　Hence　judgement　is　compelled；　for　its　own　guidance；　to　adopt　it　as　an　a　priori　principle；　that　what　is　for　human　insight　contingent　in　the　particular　（empirical）　laws　of　nature　contains　nevertheless　unity　of　law　in　the　synthesis　of　its　manifold　in　an　intrinsically　possible　experience…unfathomable；　though　still　thinkable；　as　such　unity　may；　no　doubt；　be　for　us。　Consequently；　as　the　unity　of　law　in　a　synthesis；　which　is　cognized　by　us　in　obedience　to　a　necessary　aim　（a　need　of　understanding）；　though　recognized　at　the　same　time　as　contingent；　is　represented　as　a　finality　of　objects　（here　of　nature）；　so　judgement；　which；　in　respect　of　things　under　possible　（yet　to　be　discovered）　empirical　laws；　is　merely　reflective；　must　regard　nature　in　respect　of　the　latter　according　to　a　principle　of　finality　for　our　cognitive　faculty；　which　then　finds　expression　in　the　above　maxims　of　judgement。　Now　this　transcendental　concept　of　a　finality　of　nature　is　neither　a　concept　of　nature　nor　of　freedom；　since　it　attributes　nothing　at　all　to　the　object；　i。e。；　to　nature；　but　only　represents　the　unique　mode　in　which　we　must　proceed　in　our　reflection　upon　the　objects　of　nature　with　a　view　to　getting　a　thoro