the critique of pure reason- 第103部分

complete　division；　the　principle：　Non　datur　vacuum　formarum。　This

principle　asserts　that　there　are　not　different　primitive　and　highest

genera；　which　stand　isolated；　so　to　speak；　from　each　other；　but　all

the　various　genera　are　mere　divisions　and　limitations　of　one　highest

and　universal　genus；　and　hence　follows　immediately　the　principle：

Datur　continuum　formarum。　This　principle　indicates　that　all

differences　of　species　limit　each　other；　and　do　not　admit　of

transition　from　one　to　another　by　a　saltus；　but　only　through　smaller

degrees　of　the　difference　between　the　one　species　and　the　other。　In

one　word；　there　are　no　species　or　sub…species　which　（in　the　view　of

reason）　are　the　nearest　possible　to　each　other；　intermediate　species

or　sub…species　being　always　possible；　the　difference　of　which　from

each　of　the　former　is　always　smaller　than　the　difference　existing

between　these。

　　The　first　law；　therefore；　directs　us　to　avoid　the　notion　that

there　exist　different　primal　genera；　and　enounces　the　fact　of

perfect　homogeneity；　the　second　imposes　a　check　upon　this　tendency

to　unity　and　prescribes　the　distinction　of　sub…species；　before

proceeding　to　apply　our　general　conceptions　to　individuals。　The

third　unites　both　the　former；　by　enouncing　the　fact　of　homogeneity

as　existing　even　in　the　most　various　diversity；　by　means　of　the

gradual　transition　from　one　species　to　another。　Thus　it　indicates　a

relationship　between　the　different　branches　or　species；　in　so　far　as

they　all　spring　from　the　same　stem。

　　But　this　logical　law　of　the　continuum　specierum　（formarum　logicarum）

presupposes　a　transcendental　principle　（lex　continui　in　natura）；

without　which　the　understanding　might　be　led　into　error；　by

following　the　guidance　of　the　former；　and　thus　perhaps　pursuing　a　path

contrary　to　that　prescribed　by　nature。　This　law　must；　consequently；　be

based　upon　pure　transcendental；　and　not　upon　empirical；

considerations。　For；　in　the　latter　case；　it　would　come　later　than

the　system；　whereas　it　is　really　itself　the　parent　of　all　that　is

systematic　in　our　cognition　of　nature。　These　principles　are　not　mere

hypotheses　employed　for　the　purpose　of　experimenting　upon　nature；

although　when　any　such　connection　is　discovered；　it　forms　a　solid

ground　for　regarding　the　hypothetical　unity　as　valid　in　the　sphere

of　nature…　and　thus　they　are　in　this　respect　not　without　their　use。

But　we　go　farther；　and　maintain　that　it　is　manifest　that　these

principles　of　parsimony　in　fundamental　causes；　variety　in　effects；　and

affinity　in　phenomena；　are　in　accordance　both　with　reason　and

nature；　and　that　they　are　not　mere　methods　or　plans　devised　for　the

purpose　of　assisting　us　in　our　observation　of　the　external　world。

　　But　it　is　plain　that　this　continuity　of　forms　is　a　mere　idea；　to

which　no　adequate　object　can　be　discovered　in　experience。　And　this　for

two　reasons。　First；　because　the　species　in　nature　are　really

divided；　and　hence　form　quanta　discreta；　and；　if　the　gradual

progression　through　their　affinity　were　continuous；　the　intermediate

members　lying　between　two　given　species　must　be　infinite　in　number；

which　is　impossible。　Secondly；　because　we　cannot　make　any

determinate　empirical　use　of　this　law；　inasmuch　as　it　does　not　present

us　with　any　criterion　of　affinity　which　could　aid　us　in　determining

how　far　we　ought　to　pursue　the　graduation　of　differences：　it　merely

contains　a　general　indication　that　it　is　our　duty　to　seek　for　and；

if　possible；　to　discover　them。

　　When　we　arrange　these　principles　of　systematic　unity　in　the　order

conformable　to　their　employment　in　experience；　they　will　stand　thus：

Variety；　Affinity；　Unity；　each　of　them；　as　ideas；　being　taken　in　the

highest　degree　of　their　completeness。　Reason　presupposes　the　existence

of　cognitions　of　the　understanding；　which　have　a　direct　relation　to

experience；　and　aims　at　the　ideal　unity　of　these　cognitions…　a　unity

which　far　transcends　all　experience　or　empirical　notions。　The　affinity

of　the　diverse；　notwithstanding　the　differences　existing　between　its

parts；　has　a　relation　to　things；　but　a　still　closer　one　to　the　mere

properties　and　powers　of　things。　For　example；　imperfect　experience　may

represent　the　orbits　of　the　planets　as　circular。　But　we　discover

variations　from　this　course；　and　we　proceed　to　suppose　that　the

planets　revolve　in　a　path　which；　if　not　a　circle；　is　of　a　character

very　similar　to　it。　That　is　to　say；　the　movements　of　those　planets

which　do　not　form　a　circle　will　approximate　more　or　less　to　the

properties　of　a　circle；　and　probably　form　an　ellipse。　The　paths　of

comets　exhibit　still　greater　variations；　for；　so　far　as　our

observation　extends；　they　do　not　return　upon　their　own　course　in　a

circle　or　ellipse。　But　we　proceed　to　the　conjecture　that　comets

describe　a　parabola；　a　figure　which　is　closely　allied　to　the

ellipse。　In　fact；　a　parabola　is　merely　an　ellipse；　with　its　longer

axis　produced　to　an　indefinite　extent。　Thus　these　principles　conduct

us　to　a　unity　in　the　genera　of　the　forms　of　these　orbits；　and；

proceeding　farther；　to　a　unity　as　regards　the　cause　of　the　motions

of　the　heavenly　bodies…　that　is；　gravitation。　But　we　go　on　extending

our　conquests　over　nature；　and　endeavour　to　explain　all　seeming

deviations　from　these　rules；　and　even　make　additions　to　our　system

which　no　experience　can　ever　substantiate…　for　example；　the　theory；　in

affinity　with　that　of　ellipses；　of　hyperbolic　paths　of　comets；

pursuing　which；　these　bodies　leave　our　solar　system　and；　passing

from　sun　to　sun；　unite　the　most　distant　parts　of　the　infinite

universe；　which　is　held　together　by　the　same　moving　power。

　　The　most　remarkable　circumstance　connected　with　these　principles

is　that　they　seem　to　be　transcendental；　and；　although　only

containing　ideas　for　the　guidance　of　the　empirical　exercise　of　reason；

and　although　this　empirical　employment　stands　to　these　ideas　in　an

asymptotic　relation　alone　（to　use　a　mathematical　term）；　that　is；

continually　approximate；　without　ever　being　able　to　attain　to　them；

they　possess；　notwithstanding；　as　a　priori　synthetical　propositions；

objective　though　undetermined　validity；　and　are　available　as　rules　for

possible　experience。　In　the　elaboration　of　our　experience；　they　may

also　be　employed　with　great　advantage；　as　heuristic*　principles。　A

transcendental　deduction　of　them　cannot　be　made；　such　a　deduction

being　always　impossible　in　the　case　of　ideas；　as　has　been　already

shown。



　　*From　the　Greek；　eurhioko。



　　We　distinguished；　in　the　Transcendental　Analytic；　the　dynamical

principles　of　the　understanding；　which　are　regulative　principles　of

intuition；　from　the　mathematical；　which　are　constitutive　principles　of

intuition。　These　dynamical　laws　are；　however；　constitutive　in　relation

to　experience；　inasmuch　as　they　render　the　conceptions　without　which

experience　could　not　exist　possible　a　priori。　But　the　principles　of

pure　reason　cannot　be　constitutive　even　in　regard　to　empirical

conceptions；　because　no　sensuous　schema　corresponding　to　them　can　be

discovered；　and　they　cannot　therefore　have　an　object　in　concreto。　Now；

if　I　grant　that　they　cannot　be　employed　in　the　sphere　of　experience；

as　constitutive　principles；　how　shall　I　secure　for　them　employment　and

objective　validity　as　regulative　principles；　and　in　what　way　can

they　be　so　employed？

　　The　understanding　is　the　object　of　reason；　as　sensibility　is　the

object　of　the　understanding。　The　production　of　systematic　unity　in　all

the　empirical　operations　of　the　understanding　is　the　proper　occupation

of　reason；　just　as　it　is　the　business　of　the　understanding　to

connect　the　various　content　of　phenomena　by　means　of　conceptions；

and　subject　them　to　empirical　laws。　But　the　operations　of　the

understanding　are；　without　the　schemata　of　sensibility；

undetermined；　and；　in　the　same　manner；　the　unity　of　reason　is

perfectly　undetermined　as　regards　the　conditions　under　which；　and

the　extent　to　which；　the　understanding　ought　to　carry　the　systematic

connection　of　its　conceptions。　But；　although　it　is　impossible　to

discover　in　intuition　a　schema　for　the　complete　systematic　unity　of

all　the　conceptions　of　the　understanding；　there　must　be　some

analogon　of　this　schema。　This　analogon　is　the　idea　of　the　maximum　of

the　division　and　the　connection　of　our　cognition　in　one　principle。　For

we　may　have　a　determinate　notion　of　a　maximum　and　an　absolutely

perfect；　all　the　restrictive　conditions　which　are　connected　with　an

indeterminate　and　various　content　having　been　abstracted。　Thus　the

idea　of　reason　is　analogous　with　a　sensuous　schema；　with　this

difference；　that　the　application　of　the　categories　to　the　schema　of

reason　does　not　present　a　cognition　of　any　object　（as　is　the　case　with

the　application　of　the　categories　to　sensuous　schemata）；　but　merely

provides　us　with　a　rule　or　principle　for　the　systematic　unity　of　the

exercise　of　the　understanding。　Now；　as　every　principle　which　imposes

upon　the　exercise　of　the　understanding　a　priori　compliance　with　the

rule　of　systematic　unity　also　relates；　although　only　in　an　indirect

manner；　to　an　object　of　experience；　the　principles　of　pure　reason　will

also　possess　objective　reality　and　validity　in　relation　to　experience。

But　they　will　not　aim　at　determining　our　knowledge　in　regard　to　any

empirical　object；　they　will　merely　indicate　the　procedure；　following

which　the　empirical　and　determinate　exercise　of　the　understanding

may　be　in　complete　harmony　and　connection　with　itself…　a　result

which　is　produced　by　its　being　brought　into　harmony　with　the　principle

of　systematic　unity；　so　far　as　that　is　possible；　and　deduced　from　it。

　　I　term　all　subjective　principles；　which　are　not　derived　from

observation　of　the　constitution　of　an　object；　but　from　the　interest

which　Reason　has　in　producing　a　certain　completeness　in　her

cognition　of　that　object；　maxims　of　reason。　Thus　there　are　maxims　of

speculative　reason；　which　are　based　solely　upon　its　speculative

interes