the critique of pure reason- 第37部分

foundation；　so　a　phenomenon　taken　as　unity　is　a　quantity；　and　as

such　always　a　continuous　quantity　（quantum　continuum）。

　　Now；　seeing　all　phenomena；　whether　considered　as　extensive　or

intensive；　are　continuous　quantities；　the　proposition：　〃All　change

（transition　of　a　thing　from　one　state　into　another）　is　continuous；〃

might　be　proved　here　easily；　and　with　mathematical　evidence；　were　it

not　that　the　causality　of　a　change　lies；　entirely　beyond　the　bounds　of

a　transcendental　philosophy；　and　presupposes　empirical　principles。　For

of　the　possibility　of　a　cause　which　changes　the　condition　of　things；

that　is；　which　determines　them　to　the　contrary　to　a　certain　given

state；　the　understanding　gives　us　a　priori　no　knowledge；　not　merely

because　it　has　no　insight　into　the　possibility　of　it　（for　such　insight

is　absent　in　several　a　priori　cognitions）；　but　because　the　notion　of

change　concerns　only　certain　determinations　of　phenomena；　which

experience　alone　can　acquaint　us　with；　while　their　cause　lies　in　the

unchangeable。　But　seeing　that　we　have　nothing　which　we　could　here

employ　but　the　pure　fundamental　conceptions　of　all　possible

experience；　among　which　of　course　nothing　empirical　can　be　admitted；

we　dare　not；　without　injuring　the　unity　of　our　system；　anticipate

general　physical　science；　which　is　built　upon　certain　fundamental

experiences。

　　Nevertheless；　we　are　in　no　want　of　proofs　of　the　great　influence

which　the　principle　above　developed　exercises　in　the　anticipation　of

perceptions；　and　even　in　supplying　the　want　of　them；　so　far　as　to

shield　us　against　the　false　conclusions　which　otherwise　we　might

rashly　draw。

　　If　all　reality　in　perception　has　a　degree；　between　which　and

negation　there　is　an　endless　sequence　of　ever　smaller　degrees；　and　if；

nevertheless；　every　sense　must　have　a　determinate　degree　of

receptivity　for　sensations；　no　perception；　and　consequently　no

experience　is　possible；　which　can　prove；　either　immediately　or

mediately；　an　entire　absence　of　all　reality　in　a　phenomenon；　in

other　words；　it　is　impossible　ever　to　draw　from　experience　a　proof

of　the　existence　of　empty　space　or　of　empty　time。　For　in　the　first

place；　an　entire　absence　of　reality　in　a　sensuous　intuition　cannot

of　course　be　an　object　of　perception；　secondly；　such　absence　cannot　be

deduced　from　the　contemplation　of　any　single　phenomenon；　and　the

difference　of　the　degrees　in　its　reality；　nor　ought　it　ever　to　be

admitted　in　explanation　of　any　phenomenon。　For　if　even　the　complete

intuition　of　a　determinate　space　or　time　is　thoroughly　real；　that

is；　if　no　part　thereof　is　empty；　yet　because　every　reality　has　its

degree；　which；　with　the　extensive　quantity　of　the　phenomenon

unchanged；　can　diminish　through　endless　gradations　down　to　nothing

（the　void）；　there　must　be　infinitely　graduated　degrees；　with　which

space　or　time　is　filled；　and　the　intensive　quantity　in　different

phenomena　may　be　smaller　or　greater；　although　the　extensive　quantity

of　the　intuition　remains　equal　and　unaltered。

　　We　shall　give　an　example　of　this。　Almost　all　natural　philosophers；

remarking　a　great　difference　in　the　quantity　of　the　matter　of

different　kinds　in　bodies　with　the　same　volume　（partly　on　account　of

the　momentum　of　gravity　or　weight；　partly　on　account　of　the　momentum

of　resistance　to　other　bodies　in　motion）；　conclude　unanimously　that

this　volume　（extensive　quantity　of　the　phenomenon）　must　be　void　in　all

bodies；　although　in　different　proportion。　But　who　would　suspect　that

these　for　the　most　part　mathematical　and　mechanical　inquirers　into

nature　should　ground　this　conclusion　solely　on　a　metaphysical

hypothesis…　a　sort　of　hypothesis　which　they　profess　to　disparage　and

avoid？　Yet　this　they　do；　in　assuming　that　the　real　in　space　（I　must

not　here　call　it　impenetrability　or　weight；　because　these　are

empirical　conceptions）　is　always　identical；　and　can　only　be

distinguished　according　to　its　extensive　quantity；　that　is；

multiplicity。　Now　to　this　presupposition；　for　which　they　can　have　no

ground　in　experience；　and　which　consequently　is　merely　metaphysical；　I

oppose　a　transcendental　demonstration；　which　it　is　true　will　not

explain　the　difference　in　the　filling　up　of　spaces；　but　which

nevertheless　completely　does　away　with　the　supposed　necessity　of　the

above…mentioned　presupposition　that　we　cannot　explain　the　said

difference　otherwise　than　by　the　hypothesis　of　empty　spaces。　This

demonstration；　moreover；　has　the　merit　of　setting　the　understanding　at

liberty　to　conceive　this　distinction　in　a　different　manner；　if　the

explanation　of　the　fact　requires　any　such　hypothesis。　For　we

perceive　that　although　two　equal　spaces　may　be　completely　filled　by

matters　altogether　different；　so　that　in　neither　of　them　is　there　left

a　single　point　wherein　matter　is　not　present；　nevertheless；　every

reality　has　its　degree　（of　resistance　or　of　weight）；　which；　without

diminution　of　the　extensive　quantity；　can　become　less　and　less　ad

infinitum；　before　it　passes　into　nothingness　and　disappears。　Thus　an

expansion　which　fills　a　space…　for　example；　caloric；　or　any　other

reality　in　the　phenomenal　world…　can　decrease　in　its　degrees　to

infinity；　yet　without　leaving　the　smallest　part　of　the　space　empty；　on

the　contrary；　filling　it　with　those　lesser　degrees　as　completely　as

another　phenomenon　could　with　greater。　My　intention　here　is　by　no

means　to　maintain　that　this　is　really　the　case　with　the　difference

of　matters；　in　regard　to　their　specific　gravity；　I　wish　only　to　prove；

from　a　principle　of　the　pure　understanding；　that　the　nature　of　our

perceptions　makes　such　a　mode　of　explanation　possible；　and　that　it

is　erroneous　to　regard　the　real　in　a　phenomenon　as　equal　quoad　its

degree；　and　different　only　quoad　its　aggregation　and　extensive

quantity；　and　this；　too；　on　the　pretended　authority　of　an　a　priori

principle　of　the　understanding。

　　Nevertheless；　this　principle　of　the　anticipation　of　perception

must　somewhat　startle　an　inquirer　whom　initiation　into

transcendental　philosophy　has　rendered　cautious。　We　must　naturally

entertain　some　doubt　whether　or　not　the　understanding　can　enounce

any　such　synthetical　proposition　as　that　respecting　the　degree　of

all　reality　in　phenomena；　and　consequently　the　possibility　of　the

internal　difference　of　sensation　itself…　abstraction　being　made　of　its

empirical　quality。　Thus　it　is　a　question　not　unworthy　of　solution：

〃How　the　understanding　can　pronounce　synthetically　and　a　priori

respecting　phenomena；　and　thus　anticipate　these；　even　in　that　which　is

peculiarly　and　merely　empirical；　that；　namely；　which　concerns

sensation　itself？〃

　　The　quality　of　sensation　is　in　all　cases　merely　empirical；　and

cannot　be　represented　a　priori　（for　example；　colours；　taste；　etc。）。

But　the　real…　that　which　corresponds　to　sensation…　in　opposition　to

negation　=　O；　only　represents　something　the　conception　of　which　in

itself　contains　a　being　（ein　seyn）；　and　signifies　nothing　but　the

synthesis　in　an　empirical　consciousness。　That　is　to　say；　the　empirical

consciousness　in　the　internal　sense　can　be　raised　from　0　to　every

higher　degree；　so　that　the　very　same　extensive　quantity　of

intuition；　an　illuminated　surface；　for　example；　excites　as　great　a

sensation　as　an　aggregate　of　many　other　surfaces　less　illuminated。

We　can　therefore　make　complete　abstraction　of　the　extensive　quantity

of　a　phenomenon；　and　represent　to　ourselves　in　the　mere　sensation　in　a

certain　momentum；　a　synthesis　of　homogeneous　ascension　from　0　up　to

the　given　empirical　consciousness；　All　sensations　therefore　as　such

are　given　only　a　posteriori；　but　this　property　thereof；　namely；　that

they　have　a　degree；　can　be　known　a　priori。　It　is　worthy　of　remark；

that　in　respect　to　quantities　in　general；　we　can　cognize　a　priori　only

a　single　quality；　namely；　continuity；　but　in　respect　to　all　quality

（the　real　in　phenomena）；　we　cannot　cognize　a　priori　anything　more　than

the　intensive　quantity　thereof；　namely；　that　they　have　a　degree。　All

else　is　left　to　experience。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3。　ANALOGIES　OF　EXPERIENCE。



　　　　The　principle　of　these　is：　Experience　is　possible　only

　　　　　through　the　representation　of　a　necessary　connection

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　of　Perceptions。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。



　　Experience　is　an　empirical　cognition；　that　is　to　say；　a　cognition

which　determines　an　object　by　means　of　perceptions。　It　is　therefore

a　synthesis　of　perceptions；　a　synthesis　which　is　not　itself

contained　in　perception；　but　which　contains　the　synthetical　unity　of

the　manifold　of　perception　in　a　consciousness；　and　this　unity

constitutes　the　essential　of　our　cognition　of　objects　of　the　senses；

that　is；　of　experience　（not　merely　of　intuition　or　sensation）。　Now

in　experience　our　perceptions　come　together　contingently；　so　that　no

character　of　necessity　in　their　connection　appears；　or　can　appear　from

the　perceptions　themselves；　because　apprehension　is　only　a　placing

together　of　the　manifold　of　empirical　intuition；　and　no　representation

of　a　necessity　in　the　connected　existence　of　the　phenomena　which

apprehension　brings　together；　is　to　be　discovered　therein。　But　as

experience　is　a　cognition　of　objects　by　means　of　perceptions；　it

follows　that　the　relation　of　the　existence　of　the　existence　of　the

manifold　must　be　represented　in　experience　not　as　it　is　put　together

in　time；　but　as　it　is　objectively　in　time。　And　as　time　itself　cannot

be　perceived；　the　determination　of　the　existence　of　objects　in　time

can　only　take　place　by　means　of　their　connection　in　time　in　general；

consequently　only　by　means　of　a　priori　connecting　conceptions。　Now

as　these　conceptions　always　possess　the　character　of　necessity；

experience　is　possible　only　by　means　of　a　representation　of　the

necessary　connection　of　perception。

　　The　three　modi　of　time　are　permanence；　succession；　and

coexistence。　Accordingly；　there　are　three　rules　of　all　relations　of

time　in　phenomena；　according　to　which　the　existen