shorter logic-第30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！


substituting　for　these　statements　of　experience　the　corresponding　categories　or
metaphysical　terms。　Thus　arise　these　four　new　propositions：　（a）　the　Soul　is　a
substance；　（b）　it　is　a　simple　substance；　（c）　it　is　numerically　identical　at　the　various
periods　of　existence；　（d）　it　stands　in　relation　to　space。　

Kant　discusses　this　translation；　and　draws　attention　to　the　Paralogism　or　mistake
of　confounding　one　kind　of　truth　with　another。　He　points　out　that　empirical
attributes　have　here　been　replaced　by　categories；　and　shows　that　we　are　not
entitled　to　argue　from　the　former　to　the　latter；　or　to　put　the　latter　in　place　of　the
former。　

This　criticism　obviously　but　repeats　the　observation　of　Hume　（§　39）　that　the
categories　as　a　whole　ideas　of　universality　and　necessity　are　entirely　absent　from
sensation；　and　that　the　empirical　fact　both　in　form　and　contents　differs　from　its
intellectual　formulation。　

If　the　purely　empirical　fact　were　held　to　constitute　the　credentials　of　the　thought；
then　no　doubt　it　would　be　indispensable　to　be　able　precisely　to　identify　the　'idea'
in　the　'impression'。　

And　in　order　to　make　out；　in　his　criticism　of　the　metaphysical　psychology；　that　the
soul　cannot　be　described　as　substantial；　simple；　self…same；　and　as　maintaining　its
independence　in　intercourse　with　the　material　world；　Kant　argues　from　the　single
ground　that　the　several　attributes　of　the　soul；　which　consciousness　lets　us　feel　in
experience；　are　not　exactly　the　same　attributes　as　result　from　the　action　of
thought　thereon。　But　we　have　seen　above　that　according　to　Kant　all　knowledge；
even　experience；　consists　in　thinking　our　impressions　in　other　words；　in
transforming　into　intellectual　categories　the　attributes　primarily　belonging　to
sensation。　

Unquestionably　one　good　result　of　the　Kantian　criticism　was　that　it　emancipated
mental　philosophy　from　the　'soul…thing'；　from　the　categories；　and；　consequently；
from　questions　about　the　simplicity；　complexity；　materiality；　etc。；　of　the　soul。　But
even　for　the　common　sense　of　ordinary　men；　the　true　point　of　view；　from　which
the　inadmissibility　of　these　forms　best　appears；　will　be　not　that　they　are　thoughts；
but　that　thoughts　of　such　a　stamp　neither　can　nor　do　retain　truth。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§47

If　thought　and　phenomenon　do　not　perfectly　correspond　to　one　another；　we　are
free　at　least　to　choose　which　of　the　two　shall　be　held　the　defaulter。　The　Kantian
idealism；　where　it　touches　on　the　world　of　Reason；　throws　the　blame　on　the
thoughts；　saying　that　the　thoughts　are　defective；　as　not　being　exactly　fitted　to　the
sensations　and　to　a　mode　of　mind　wholly　restricted　within　the　range　of　sensation；
in　which　as　such　there　are　no　traces　of　the　presence　of　these　thoughts。　But　as　to
the　actual　content　of　the　thought；　no　question　is　raised。　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§47n

Paralogisms　are　a　species　of　unsound　syllogism；　the　especial　vice　of　which　consists　in　employing
one　and　the　same　word　in　the　two　premises　with　a　different　meaning。　According　to　Kant　the
method　adopted　by　the　rational　psychology　of　the　old　metaphysicians；　when　they　assumed　that　the
qualities　of　the　phenomenal　soul；　as　given　in　experience；　formed　part　of　its　own　real　essence；　was
based　upon　such　a　Paralogism。　Nor　can　it　be　denied　that　predicates　like　simplicity；　permanence；
etc。；　are　inapplicable　to　the　soul。　But　their　unfitness　is　not　due　to　the　ground　assigned　by　Kant；　that
Reason；　by　applying　them；　would　exceed　its　appointed　bounds。　The　true　ground　is　that　this　style　of
abstract　terms　is　not　good　enough　for　the　soul；　which　is　very　much　more　than　a　mere　simple　or
unchangeable　sort　of　thing。　And　thus；　for　example；　while　the　soul　may　be　admitted　to　be　simple
selfsameness；　it　is　at　the　same　time　active　and　institutes　distinctions　in　its　own　nature。　But　whatever
is　merely　or　abstractly　simple　is　as　such　also　a　mere　dead　thing。　By　his　polemic　against　the
metaphysic　of　the　past　Kant　discarded　those　predicates　from　the　soul　or　mind。　He　did　well；　but
when　he　came　to　state　his　reasons；　his　failure　is　apparent。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§　48

＇b＇　The　second　unconditioned　object　is　the　World　（§　35）。　In　the　attempt　which
reason　makes　to　comprehend　the　unconditioned　nature　of　the　World；　it　falls　into
what　are　called　Antinomies。　In　other　words　it　maintains　two　opposite　propositions
about　the　same　object；　and　in　such　a　way　that　each　of　them　has　to　be　maintained
with　equal　necessity。　From　this　it　follows　that　the　body　of　cosmical　fact；　the
specific　statements　descriptive　of　which　run　into　contradiction；　cannot　be　a
self…subsistent　reality；　but　only　an　appearance。　The　explanation　offered　by　Kant
alleges　that　the　contradiction　does　not　affect　the　object　in　its　own　proper　essence；
but　attaches　only　to　the　Reason　which　seeks　to　comprehend　it。　

In　this　way　the　suggestion　was　broached　that　the　contradiction　is　occasioned　by
the　subject…matter　itself；　or　by　the　intrinsic　quality　of　the　categories。　And　to　offer
the　idea　that　the　contradiction　introduced　into　the　world　of　Reason　by　the
categories　of　Understanding　is　inevitable　and　essential　was　to　make　one　of　the
most　important　steps　in　the　progress　of　Modern　Philosophy。　But　the　more
important　the　issue　thus　raised　the　more　trivial　was　the　solution。　Its　only　motive
was　an　excess　of　tenderness　for　the　things　of　the　world。　The　blemish　of
contradiction；　it　seems；　could　not　be　allowed　to　mar　the　essence　of　the　world；　but
there　could　be　no　objection　to　attach　it　to　the　thinking　Reason；　to　the　essence　of
mind。　Probably　nobody　will　feel　disposed　to　deny　that　the　phenomenal　world
presents　contradictions　to　the　observing　mind；　meaning　by　'phenomenal'　the
world　as　it　presents　itself　to　the　senses　and　understanding；　to　the　subjective　mind。
But　if　a　comparison　is　instituted　between　the　essence　of　the　world　and　the
essence　of　the　mind；　it　does　seem　strange　to　hear　how　calmly　and　confidently　the
modest　dogma　has　been　advanced　by　one；　and　repeated　by　others；　that　thought　or
Reason；　and　not　the　World；　is　the　seat　of　contradiction。　It　is　no　escape　to　turn
round　and　explain　that　Reason　falls　into　contradiction　only　by　applying　the
categories。　For　this　application　of　the　categories　is　maintained　to　be　necessary；
and　Reason　is　not　supposed　to　be　equipped　with　any　other　forms　but　the
categories　for　the　purpose　of　cognition。　But　cognition　is　determining　and
determinate　thinking：　so　that；　if　Reason　be　mere　empty　indeterminate　thinking；　it
thinks　nothing。　And　if　in　the　end　Reason　be　reduced　to　mere　identity　without
diversity　（see　next　§）；　it　will　in　the　end　also　win　a　happy　release　from
contradiction　at　the　slight　sacrifice　of　all　its　facets　and　contents。　

It　may　also　be　noted　that　his　failure　to　make　a　more　thorough　study　of　Antinomy
was　one　of　the　reasons　why　Kant　enumerated　only　four　Antinomies。　These　four
attracted　his　notice；　because；　as　may　be　seen　in　his　discussion　of　the　so…called
Paralogisms　of　Reason；　he　assumed　the　list　of　the　categories　as　a　basis　of　his
argument。　Employing　what　has　subsequently　become　a　favourite　fashion；　he
simply　put　the　object　under　a　rubric　otherwise　ready　to　hand；　i