the critique of pure reason- 第33部分

quality　the　synthesis　of　sensation　with　the　representation　of　time；　or

the　filling　up　of　time；　the　schema　of　relation　the　relation　of

perceptions　to　each　other　in　all　time　（that　is；　according　to　a　rule　of

the　determination　of　time）：　and　finally；　the　schema　of　modality　and

its　categories；　time　itself；　as　the　correlative　of　the　determination

of　an　object…　whether　it　does　belong　to　time；　and　how。　The　schemata；

therefore；　are　nothing　but　a　priori　determinations　of　time　according

to　rules；　and　these；　in　regard　to　all　possible　objects；　following

the　arrangement　of　the　categories；　relate　to　the　series　in　time；　the

content　in　time；　the　order　in　time；　and　finally；　to　the　complex　or

totality　in　time。

　　Hence　it　is　apparent　that　the　schematism　of　the　understanding；　by

means　of　the　transcendental　synthesis　of　the　imagination；　amounts　to

nothing　else　than　the　unity　of　the　manifold　of　intuition　in　the

internal　sense；　and　thus　indirectly　to　the　unity　of　apperception；　as　a

function　corresponding　to　the　internal　sense　（a　receptivity）。　Thus；

the　schemata　of　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding　are　the　true

and　only　conditions　whereby　our　understanding　receives　an

application　to　objects；　and　consequently　significance。　Finally；

therefore；　the　categories　are　only　capable　of　empirical　use；

inasmuch　as　they　serve　merely　to　subject　phenomena　to　the　universal

rules　of　synthesis；　by　means　of　an　a　priori　necessary　unity　（on

account　of　the　necessary　union　of　all　consciousness　in　one　original

apperception）；　and　so　to　render　them　susceptible　of　a　complete

connection　in　one　experience。　But　within　this　whole　of　possible

experience　lie　all　our　cognitions；　and　in　the　universal　relation　to

this　experience　consists　transcendental　truth；　which　antecedes　all

empirical　truth；　and　renders　the　latter　possible。

　　It　is；　however；　evident　at　first　sight；　that　although　the　schemata

of　sensibility　are　the　sole　agents　in　realizing　the　categories；　they

do；　nevertheless；　also　restrict　them；　that　is；　they　limit　the

categories　by　conditions　which　lie　beyond　the　sphere　of　understanding…

namely；　in　sensibility。　Hence　the　schema　is　properly　only　the

phenomenon；　or　the　sensuous　conception　of　an　object　in　harmony　with

the　category。　（Numerus　est　quantitas　phaenomenon…　sensatio　realitas

phaenomenon；　constans　et　perdurabile　rerum　substantia　phaenomenon…

aeternitas；　necessitas；　phaenomena；　etc。）　Now；　if　we　remove　a

restrictive　condition；　we　thereby　amplify；　it　appears；　the　formerly

limited　conception。　In　this　way；　the　categories　in　their　pure

signification；　free　from　all　conditions　of　sensibility；　ought　to　be

valid　of　things　as　they　are；　and　not；　as　the　schemata　represent

them；　merely　as　they　appear；　and　consequently　the　categories　must　have

a　significance　far　more　extended；　and　wholly　independent　of　all

schemata。　In　truth；　there　does　always　remain　to　the　pure　conceptions

of　the　understanding；　after　abstracting　every　sensuous　condition；　a

value　and　significance；　which　is；　however；　merely　logical。　But　in　this

case；　no　object　is　given　them；　and　therefore　they　have　no　meaning

sufficient　to　afford　us　a　conception　of　an　object。　The　notion　of

substance；　for　example；　if　we　leave　out　the　sensuous　determination

of　permanence；　would　mean　nothing　more　than　a　something　which　can　be

cogitated　as　subject；　without　the　possibility　of　becoming　a

predicate　to　anything　else。　Of　this　representation　I　can　make　nothing；

inasmuch　as　it　does　not　indicate　to　me　what　determinations　the　thing

possesses　which　must　thus　be　valid　as　premier　subject。　Consequently；

the　categories；　without　schemata　are　merely　functions　of　the

understanding　for　the　production　of　conceptions；　but　do　not

represent　any　object。　This　significance　they　derive　from

sensibility；　which　at　the　same　time　realizes　the　understanding　and

restricts　it。

　　　CHAPTER　II。　System　of　all　Principles　of　the　Pure　Understanding。



　　In　the　foregoing　chapter　we　have　merely　considered　the　general

conditions　under　which　alone　the　transcendental　faculty　of　judgement

is　justified　in　using　the　pure　conceptions　of　the　understanding　for

synthetical　judgements。　Our　duty　at　present　is　to　exhibit　in

systematic　connection　those　judgements　which　the　understanding

really　produces　a　priori。　For　this　purpose；　our　table　of　the

categories　will　certainly　afford　us　the　natural　and　safe　guidance。　For

it　is　precisely　the　categories　whose　application　to　possible

experience　must　constitute　all　pure　a　priori　cognition　of　the

understanding；　and　the　relation　of　which　to　sensibility　will；　on

that　very　account；　present　us　with　a　complete　and　systematic　catalogue

of　all　the　transcendental　principles　of　the　use　of　the　understanding。

　　Principles　a　priori　are　so　called；　not　merely　because　they　contain

in　themselves　the　grounds　of　other　judgements；　but　also　because　they

themselves　are　not　grounded　in　higher　and　more　general　cognitions。

This　peculiarity；　however；　does　not　raise　them　altogether　above　the

need　of　a　proof。　For　although　there　could　be　found　no　higher

cognition；　and　therefore　no　objective　proof；　and　although　such　a

principle　rather　serves　as　the　foundation　for　all　cognition　of　the

object；　this　by　no　means　hinders　us　from　drawing　a　proof　from　the

subjective　sources　of　the　possibility　of　the　cognition　of　an　object。

Such　a　proof　is　necessary；　moreover；　because　without　it　the

principle　might　be　liable　to　the　imputation　of　being　a　mere　gratuitous

assertion。

　　In　the　second　place；　we　shall　limit　our　investigations　to　those

principles　which　relate　to　the　categories。　For　as　to　the　principles　of

transcendental　aesthetic；　according　to　which　space　and　time　are　the

conditions　of　the　possibility　of　things　as　phenomena；　as　also　the

restriction　of　these　principles；　namely；　that　they　cannot　be　applied

to　objects　as　things　in　themselves…　these；　of　course；　do　not　fall

within　the　scope　of　our　present　inquiry。　In　like　manner；　the

principles　of　mathematical　science　form　no　part　of　this　system；

because　they　are　all　drawn　from　intuition；　and　not　from　the　pure

conception　of　the　understanding。　The　possibility　of　these

principles；　however；　will　necessarily　be　considered　here；　inasmuch

as　they　are　synthetical　judgements　a　priori；　not　indeed　for　the

purpose　of　proving　their　accuracy　and　apodeictic　certainty；　which　is

unnecessary；　but　merely　to　render　conceivable　and　deduce　the

possibility　of　such　evident　a　priori　cognitions。

　　But　we　shall　have　also　to　speak　of　the　principle　of　analytical

judgements；　in　opposition　to　synthetical　judgements；　which　is　the

proper　subject　of　our　inquiries；　because　this　very　opposition　will

free　the　theory　of　the　latter　from　all　ambiguity；　and　place　it　clearly

before　our　eyes　in　its　true　nature。



　　　　　　　　SYSTEM　OF　THE　PRINCIPLES　OF　THE　PURE　UNDERSTANDING。



　　SECTION　I。　Of　the　Supreme　Principle　of　all　Analytical　Judgements。



　　Whatever　may　be　the　content　of　our　cognition；　and　in　whatever　manner

our　cognition　may　be　related　to　its　object；　the　universal；　although

only　negative　conditions　of　all　our　judgements　is　that　they　do　not

contradict　themselves；　otherwise　these　judgements　are　in　themselves

（even　without　respect　to　the　object）　nothing。　But　although　there　may

exist　no　contradiction　in　our　judgement；　it　may　nevertheless　connect

conceptions　in　such　a　manner　that　they　do　not　correspond　to　the

object；　or　without　any　grounds　either　a　priori　or　a　posteriori　for

arriving　at　such　a　judgement；　and　thus；　without　being

self…contradictory；　a　judgement　may　nevertheless　be　either　false　or

groundless。

　　Now；　the　proposition：　〃No　subject　can　have　a　predicate　that

contradicts　it；〃　is　called　the　principle　of　contradiction；　and　is　a

universal　but　purely　negative　criterion　of　all　truth。　But　it　belongs

to　logic　alone；　because　it　is　valid　of　cognitions；　merely　as

cognitions　and　without　respect　to　their　content；　and　declares　that　the

contradiction　entirely　nullifies　them。　We　can　also；　however；　make　a

positive　use　of　this　principle；　that　is；　not　merely　to　banish

falsehood　and　error　（in　so　far　as　it　rests　upon　contradiction）；　but

also　for　the　cognition　of　truth。　For　if　the　judgement　is　analytical；

be　it　affirmative　or　negative；　its　truth　must　always　be　recognizable

by　means　of　the　principle　of　contradiction。　For　the　contrary　of　that

which　lies　and　is　cogitated　as　conception　in　the　cognition　of　the

object　will　be　always　properly　negatived；　but　the　conception　itself

must　always　be　affirmed　of　the　object；　inasmuch　as　the　contrary

thereof　would　be　in　contradiction　to　the　object。

　　We　must　therefore　hold　the　principle　of　contradiction　to　be　the

universal　and　fully　sufficient　Principle　of　all　analytical

cognition。　But　as　a　sufficient　criterion　of　truth；　it　has　no　further

utility　or　authority。　For　the　fact　that　no　cognition　can　be　at

variance　with　this　principle　without　nullifying　itself；　constitutes

this　principle　the　sine　qua　non；　but　not　the　determining　ground　of　the

truth　of　our　cognition。　As　our　business　at　present　is　properly　with

the　synthetical　part　of　our　knowledge　only；　we　shall　always　be　on

our　guard　not　to　transgress　this　inviolable　principle；　but　at　the　same

time　not　to　expect　from　it　any　direct　assistance　in　the

establishment　of　the　truth　of　any　synthetical　proposition。

　　There　exists；　however；　a　formula　of　this　celebrated　principle…　a

principle　merely　formal　and　entirely　without　content…　which　contains　a

synthesis　that　has　been　inadvertently　and　quite　unnecessarily　mixed　up

with　it。　It　is　this：　〃It　is　impossible　for　a　thing　to　be　and　not　to　be

at　the　same　time。〃　Not　to　mention　the　superfluousness　of　the

addition　of　the　word　impossible　to　indicate　the　apodeictic

certainty；　which　ought　to　be　self…evident　from　the　proposition　itself；

the　proposition　is　affected　by　the　condition　of　time；　and　as　it　were

says：　〃A　thing　=　A；　which　is　something　=　B；　cannot　at　the　same　time　be

non…B。〃　But　both；　B　as　well　as　non…B；　may　quite　well　exist　in

succession。　For