the critique of pure reason- 第13部分

yet　this　happens　in　geometry。　（Introd。　V。）　But　this　intuition　must

be　found　in　the　mind　a　priori；　that　is；　before　any　perception　of

objects；　consequently　must　be　pure；　not　empirical；　intuition。　For

geometrical　principles　are　always　apodeictic；　that　is；　united　with　the

consciousness　of　their　necessity；　as：　〃Space　has　only　three

dimensions。〃　But　propositions　of　this　kind　cannot　be　empirical

judgements；　nor　conclusions　from　them。　（Introd。　II。）　Now；　how　can　an

external　intuition　anterior　to　objects　themselves；　and　in　which　our

conception　of　objects　can　be　determined　a　priori；　exist　in　the　human

mind？　Obviously　not　otherwise　than　in　so　far　as　it　has　its　seat　in　the

subject　only；　as　the　formal　capacity　of　the　subject's　being　affected

by　objects；　and　thereby　of　obtaining　immediate　representation；　that

is；　intuition；　consequently；　only　as　the　form　of　the　external　sense　in

general。

　　Thus　it　is　only　by　means　of　our　explanation　that　the　possibility

of　geometry；　as　a　synthetical　science　a　priori；　becomes

comprehensible。　Every　mode　of　explanation　which　does　not　show　us

this　possibility；　although　in　appearance　it　may　be　similar　to　ours；

can　with　the　utmost　certainty　be　distinguished　from　it　by　these　marks。



　　　　　　SS　4。　Conclusions　from　the　foregoing　Conceptions。



　　（a）　Space　does　Space　does　not　represent　any　property　of　objects　as

things　in　themselves；　nor　does　it　represent　them　in　their　relations　to

each　other；　in　other　words；　space　does　not　represent　to　us　any

determination　of　objects　such　as　attaches　to　the　objects　themselves；

and　would　remain；　even　though　all　subjective　conditions　of　the

intuition　were　abstracted。　For　neither　absolute　nor　relative

determinations　of　objects　can　be　intuited　prior　to　the　existence　of

the　things　to　which　they　belong；　and　therefore　not　a　priori。

　　（b）　Space　is　nothing　else　than　the　form　of　all　phenomena　of　the

external　sense；　that　is；　the　subjective　condition　of　the

sensibility；　under　which　alone　external　intuition　is　possible。　Now；

because　the　receptivity　or　capacity　of　the　subject　to　be　affected　by

objects　necessarily　antecedes　all　intuitions　of　these　objects；　it　is

easily　understood　how　the　form　of　all　phenomena　can　be　given　in　the

mind　previous　to　all　actual　perceptions；　therefore　a　priori；　and　how

it；　as　a　pure　intuition；　in　which　all　objects　must　be　determined；

can　contain　principles　of　the　relations　of　these　objects　prior　to

all　experience。

　　It　is　therefore　from　the　human　point　of　view　only　that　we　can

speak　of　space；　extended　objects；　etc。　If　we　depart　from　the

subjective　condition；　under　which　alone　we　can　obtain　external

intuition；　or；　in　other　words；　by　means　of　which　we　are　affected　by

objects；　the　representation　of　space　has　no　meaning　whatsoever。　This

predicate　is　only　applicable　to　things　in　so　far　as　they　appear　to　us；

that　is；　are　objects　of　sensibility。　The　constant　form　of　this

receptivity；　which　we　call　sensibility；　is　a　necessary　condition　of

all　relations　in　which　objects　can　be　intuited　as　existing　without　us；

and　when　abstraction　of　these　objects　is　made；　is　a　pure　intuition；　to

which　we　give　the　name　of　space。　It　is　clear　that　we　cannot　make　the

special　conditions　of　sensibility　into　conditions　of　the　possibility

of　things；　but　only　of　the　possibility　of　their　existence　as　far　as

they　are　phenomena。　And　so　we　may　correctly　say　that　space　contains

all　which　can　appear　to　us　externally；　but　not　all　things　considered

as　things　in　themselves；　be　they　intuited　or　not；　or　by　whatsoever

subject　one　will。　As　to　the　intuitions　of　other　thinking　beings；　we

cannot　judge　whether　they　are　or　are　not　bound　by　the　same

conditions　which　limit　our　own　intuition；　and　which　for　us　are

universally　valid。　If　we　join　the　limitation　of　a　judgement　to　the

conception　of　the　subject；　then　the　judgement　will　possess

unconditioned　validity。　For　example；　the　proposition；　〃All　objects　are

beside　each　other　in　space；〃　is　valid　only　under　the　limitation　that

these　things　are　taken　as　objects　of　our　sensuous　intuition。　But　if

I　join　the　condition　to　the　conception　and　say；　〃All　things；　as

external　phenomena；　are　beside　each　other　in　space；〃　then　the　rule

is　valid　universally；　and　without　any　limitation。　Our　expositions；

consequently；　teach　the　reality　（i。e。；　the　objective　validity）　of

space　in　regard　of　all　which　can　be　presented　to　us　externally　as

object；　and　at　the　same　time　also　the　ideality　of　space　in　regard　to

objects　when　they　are　considered　by　means　of　reason　as　things　in

themselves；　that　is；　without　reference　to　the　constitution　of　our

sensibility。　We　maintain；　therefore；　the　empirical　reality　of　space　in

regard　to　all　possible　external　experience；　although　we　must　admit　its

transcendental　ideality；　in　other　words；　that　it　is　nothing；　so　soon

as　we　withdraw　the　condition　upon　which　the　possibility　of　all

experience　depends　and　look　upon　space　as　something　that　belongs　to

things　in　themselves。

　　But；　with　the　exception　of　space；　there　is　no　representation；

subjective　and　ref　erring　to　something　external　to　us；　which　could

be　called　objective　a　priori。　For　there　are　no　other　subjective

representations　from　which　we　can　deduce　synthetical　propositions　a

priori；　as　we　can　from　the　intuition　of　space。　（See　SS　3。）

Therefore；　to　speak　accurately；　no　ideality　whatever　belongs　to　these；

although　they　agree　in　this　respect　with　the　representation　of

space；　that　they　belong　merely　to　the　subjective　nature　of　the　mode　of

sensuous　perception；　such　a　mode；　for　example；　as　that　of　sight；　of

hearing；　and　of　feeling；　by　means　of　the　sensations　of　colour；

sound；　and　heat；　but　which；　because　they　are　only　sensations　and　not

intuitions；　do　not　of　themselves　give　us　the　cognition　of　any

object；　least　of　all；　an　a　priori　cognition。　My　purpose；　in　the

above　remark；　is　merely　this：　to　guard　any　one　against　illustrating

the　asserted　ideality　of　space　by　examples　quite　insufficient；　for

example；　by　colour；　taste；　etc。；　for　these　must　be　contemplated　not　as

properties　of　things；　but　only　as　changes　in　the　subject；　changes

which　may　be　different　in　different　men。　For；　in　such　a　case；　that

which　is　originally　a　mere　phenomenon；　a　rose；　for　example；　is　taken

by　the　empirical　understanding　for　a　thing　in　itself；　though　to

every　different　eye；　in　respect　of　its　colour；　it　may　appear

different。　On　the　contrary；　the　transcendental　conception　of　phenomena

in　space　is　a　critical　admonition；　that；　in　general；　nothing　which

is　intuited　in　space　is　a　thing　in　itself；　and　that　space　is　not　a

form　which　belongs　as　a　property　to　things；　but　that　objects　are　quite

unknown　to　us　in　themselves；　and　what　we　call　outward　objects；　are

nothing　else　but　mere　representations　of　our　sensibility；　whose　form

is　space；　but　whose　real　correlate；　the　thing　in　itself；　is　not

known　by　means　of　these　representations；　nor　ever　can　be；　but

respecting　which；　in　experience；　no　inquiry　is　ever　made。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SECTION　II。　Of　Time。



　　　　　SS　5　Metaphysical　Exposition　of　this　Conception。



　　1。　Time　is　not　an　empirical　conception。　For　neither　coexistence

nor　succession　would　be　perceived　by　us；　if　the　representation　of　time

did　not　exist　as　a　foundation　a　priori。　Without　this　presupposition　we

could　not　represent　to　ourselves　that　things　exist　together　at　one　and

the　same　time；　or　at　different　times；　that　is；　contemporaneously；　or

in　succession。

　　2。　Time　is　a　necessary　representation；　lying　at　the　foundation　of

all　our　intuitions。　With　regard　to　phenomena　in　general；　we　cannot

think　away　time　from　them；　and　represent　them　to　ourselves　as　out　of

and　unconnected　with　time；　but　we　can　quite　well　represent　to

ourselves　time　void　of　phenomena。　Time　is　therefore　given　a　priori。　In

it　alone　is　all　reality　of　phenomena　possible。　These　may　all　be

annihilated　in　thought；　but　time　itself；　as　the　universal　condition　of

their　possibility；　cannot　be　so　annulled。

　　3。　On　this　necessity　a　priori　is　also　founded　the　possibility　of

apodeictic　principles　of　the　relations　of　time；　or　axioms　of　time　in

general；　such　as：　〃Time　has　only　one　dimension；〃　〃Different　times

are　not　coexistent　but　successive〃　（as　different　spaces　are　not

successive　but　coexistent）。　These　principles　cannot　be　derived　from

experience；　for　it　would　give　neither　strict　universality；　nor

apodeictic　certainty。　We　should　only　be　able　to　say；　〃so　common

experience　teaches　us；〃　but　not　〃it　must　be　so。〃　They　are　valid　as

rules；　through　which；　in　general；　experience　is　possible；　and　they

instruct　us　respecting　experience；　and　not　by　means　of　it。

　　4。　Time　is　not　a　discursive；　or　as　it　is　called；　general　conception；

but　a　pure　form　of　the　sensuous　intuition。　Different　times　are

merely　parts　of　one　and　the　same　time。　But　the　representation　which

can　only　be　given　by　a　single　object　is　an　intuition。　Besides；　the

proposition　that　different　times　cannot　be　coexistent　could　not　be

derived　from　a　general　conception。　For　this　proposition　is

synthetical；　and　therefore　cannot　spring　out　of　conceptions　alone。

It　is　therefore　contained　immediately　in　the　intuition　and

representation　of　time。

　　5。　The　infinity　of　time　signifies　nothing　more　than　that　every

determined　quantity　of　time　is　possible　only　through　limitations　of

one　time　lying　at　the　foundation。　Consequently；　the　original

representation；　time；　must　be　given　as　unlimited。　But　as　the

determinate　representation　of　the　parts　of　time　and　of　every

quantity　of　an　object　can　only　be　obtained　by　limitation；　the　complete

representation　of　time　must　not　be　furnished　by　means　of

conceptions；　for　these　contain　only　partial　representations。

Conceptions；　on　the　contrary；　must　have　immediate　intuition　for

their　basis。



　　　SS　6　Transcendental　Exposition　of　the　Conception　of　Time。



　　I　may　here　refer　to　what　is　said　above　（SS　5；　3）；　where；　for　or　sake

of　brevity；　I　have　placed　under　the　head　of　metaphysical　exposition；

that　whic