the critique of pure reason- 第61部分

necessary；　but　I　cannot　reason　conversely　and　say；　the　opposite　of

that　which　is　absolutely　necessary　is　intrinsically　impossible；　that

is；　that　the　absolute　necessity　of　things　is　an　internal　necessity。

For　this　internal　necessity　is　in　certain　cases　a　mere　empty　word　with

which　the　least　conception　cannot　be　connected；　while　the　conception

of　the　necessity　of　a　thing　in　all　relations　possesses　very　peculiar

determinations。　Now　as　the　loss　of　a　conception　of　great　utility　in

speculative　science　cannot　be　a　matter　of　indifference　to　the

philosopher；　I　trust　that　the　proper　determination　and　careful

preservation　of　the　expression　on　which　the　conception　depends　will

likewise　be　not　indifferent　to　him。

　　In　this　enlarged　signification；　then；　shall　I　employ　the　word

absolute；　in　opposition　to　that　which　is　valid　only　in　some　particular

respect；　for　the　latter　is　restricted　by　conditions；　the　former　is

valid　without　any　restriction　whatever。

　　Now　the　transcendental　conception　of　reason　has　for　its　object

nothing　else　than　absolute　totality　in　the　synthesis　of　conditions　and

does　not　rest　satisfied　till　it　has　attained　to　the　absolutely；　that

is；　in　all　respects　and　relations；　unconditioned。　For　pure　reason

leaves　to　the　understanding　everything　that　immediately　relates　to　the

object　of　intuition　or　rather　to　their　synthesis　in　imagination。　The

former　restricts　itself　to　the　absolute　totality　in　the　employment

of　the　conceptions　of　the　understanding　and　aims　at　carrying　out　the

synthetical　unity　which　is　cogitated　in　the　category；　even　to　the

unconditioned。　This　unity　may　hence　be　called　the　rational　unity　of

phenomena；　as　the　other；　which　the　category　expresses；　may　be　termed

the　unity　of　the　understanding。　Reason；　therefore；　has　an　immediate

relation　to　the　use　of　the　understanding；　not　indeed　in　so　far　as

the　latter　contains　the　ground　of　possible　experience　（for　the

conception　of　the　absolute　totality　of　conditions　is　not　a

conception　that　can　be　employed　in　experience；　because　no　experience

is　unconditioned）；　but　solely　for　the　purpose　of　directing　it　to　a

certain　unity；　of　which　the　understanding　has　no　conception；　and　the

aim　of　which　is　to　collect　into　an　absolute　whole　all　acts　of　the

understanding。　Hence　the　objective　employment　of　the　pure

conceptions　of　reason　is　always　transcendent；　while　that　of　the　pure

conceptions　of　the　understanding　must；　according　to　their　nature；　be

always　immanent；　inasmuch　as　they　are　limited　to　possible　experience。

　　I　understand　by　idea　a　necessary　conception　of　reason；　to　which　no

corresponding　object　can　be　discovered　in　the　world　of　sense。

Accordingly；　the　pure　conceptions　of　reason　at　present　under

consideration　are　transcendental　ideas。　They　are　conceptions　of　pure

reason；　for　they　regard　all　empirical　cognition　as　determined　by　means

of　an　absolute　totality　of　conditions。　They　are　not　mere　fictions；　but

natural　and　necessary　products　of　reason；　and　have　hence　a　necessary

relation　to　the　whole　sphere　of　the　exercise　of　the　understanding。

And；　finally；　they　are　transcendent；　and　overstep　the　limits　of　all

experiences；　in　which；　consequently；　no　object　can　ever　be　presented

that　would　be　perfectly　adequate　to　a　transcendental　idea。　When　we　use

the　word　idea；　we　say；　as　regards　its　object　（an　object　of　the　pure

understanding）；　a　great　deal；　but　as　regards　its　subject　（that　is；

in　respect　of　its　reality　under　conditions　of　experience）；　exceedingly

little；　because　the　idea；　as　the　conception　of　a　maximum；　can　never　be

completely　and　adequately　presented　in　concreto。　Now；　as　in　the　merely

speculative　employment　of　reason　the　latter　is　properly　the　sole

aim；　and　as　in　this　case　the　approximation　to　a　conception；　which　is

never　attained　in　practice；　is　the　same　thing　as　if　the　conception

were　non…existent…　it　is　commonly　said　of　the　conception　of　this　kind；

〃it　is　only　an　idea。〃　So　we　might　very　well　say；　〃the　absolute

totality　of　all　phenomena　is　only　an　idea；〃　for；　as　we　never　can

present　an　adequate　representation　of　it；　it　remains　for　us　a

problem　incapable　of　solution。　On　the　other　hand；　as　in　the

practical　use　of　the　understanding　we　have　only　to　do　with　action

and　practice　according　to　rules；　an　idea　of　pure　reason　can　always

be　given　really　in　concreto；　although　only　partially；　nay；　it　is　the

indispensable　condition　of　all　practical　employment　of　reason。　The

practice　or　execution　of　the　idea　is　always　limited　and　defective；　but

nevertheless　within　indeterminable　boundaries；　consequently　always

under　the　influence　of　the　conception　of　an　absolute　perfection。　And

thus　the　practical　idea　is　always　in　the　highest　degree　fruitful；

and　in　relation　to　real　actions　indispensably　necessary。　In　the

idea；　pure　reason　possesses　even　causality　and　the　power　of

producing　that　which　its　conception　contains。　Hence　we　cannot　say　of

wisdom；　in　a　disparaging　way；　〃it　is　only　an　idea。〃　For；　for　the

very　reason　that　it　is　the　idea　of　the　necessary　unity　of　all　possible

aims；　it　must　be　for　all　practical　exertions　and　endeavours　the

primitive　condition　and　rule…　a　rule　which；　if　not　constitutive；　is　at

least　limitative。

　　Now；　although　we　must　say　of　the　transcendental　conceptions　of

reason；　〃they　are　only　ideas；〃　we　must　not；　on　this　account；　look　upon

them　as　superfluous　and　nugatory。　For；　although　no　object　can　be

determined　by　them；　they　can　be　of　great　utility；　unobserved　and　at

the　basis　of　the　edifice　of　the　understanding；　as　the　canon　for　its

extended　and　self…consistent　exercise…　a　canon　which；　indeed；　does　not

enable　it　to　cognize　more　in　an　object　than　it　would　cognize　by　the

help　of　its　own　conceptions；　but　which　guides　it　more　securely　in

its　cognition。　Not　to　mention　that　they　perhaps　render　possible　a

transition　from　our　conceptions　of　nature　and　the　non…ego　to　the

practical　conceptions；　and　thus　produce　for　even　ethical　ideas

keeping；　so　to　speak；　and　connection　with　the　speculative　cognitions

of　reason。　The　explication　of　all　this　must　be　looked　for　in　the

sequel。

　　But　setting　aside；　in　conformity　with　our　original　purpose；　the

consideration　of　the　practical　ideas；　we　proceed　to　contemplate　reason

in　its　speculative　use　alone；　nay；　in　a　still　more　restricted

sphere；　to　wit；　in　the　transcendental　use；　and　here　must　strike　into

the　same　path　which　we　followed　in　our　deduction　of　the　categories。

That　is　to　say；　we　shall　consider　the　logical　form　of　the　cognition　of

reason；　that　we　may　see　whether　reason　may　not　be　thereby　a　source

of　conceptions　which　enables　us　to　regard　objects　in　themselves　as

determined　synthetically　a　priori；　in　relation　to　one　or　other　of

the　functions　of　reason。

　　Reason；　considered　as　the　faculty　of　a　certain　logical　form　of

cognition；　is　the　faculty　of　conclusion；　that　is；　of　mediate

judgement…　by　means　of　the　subsumption　of　the　condition　of　a

possible　judgement　under　the　condition　of　a　given　judgement。　The　given

judgement　is　the　general　rule　（major）。　The　subsumption　of　the

condition　of　another　possible　judgement　under　the　condition　of　the

rule　is　the　minor。　The　actual　judgement；　which　enounces　the

assertion　of　the　rule　in　the　subsumed　case；　is　the　conclusion

（conclusio）。　The　rule　predicates　something　generally　under　a　certain

condition。　The　condition　of　the　rule　is　satisfied　in　some　particular

case。　It　follows　that　what　was　valid　in　general　under　that　condition

must　also　be　considered　as　valid　in　the　particular　case　which

satisfies　this　condition。　It　is　very　plain　that　reason　attains　to　a

cognition；　by　means　of　acts　of　the　understanding　which　constitute　a

series　of　conditions。　When　I　arrive　at　the　proposition；　〃All　bodies

are　changeable；〃　by　beginning　with　the　more　remote　cognition　（in　which

the　conception　of　body　does　not　appear；　but　which　nevertheless

contains　the　condition　of　that　conception）；　〃All　compound　is

changeable；〃　by　proceeding　from　this　to　a　less　remote　cognition；　which

stands　under　the　condition　of　the　former；　〃Bodies　are　compound；〃　and

hence　to　a　third；　which　at　length　connects　for　me　the　remote　cognition

（changeable）　with　the　one　before　me；　〃Consequently；　bodies　are

changeable〃…　I　have　arrived　at　a　cognition　（conclusion）　through　a

series　of　conditions　（premisses）。　Now　every　series；　whose　exponent　（of

the　categorical　or　hypothetical　judgement）　is　given；　can　be　continued；

consequently　the　same　procedure　of　reason　conducts　us　to　the

ratiocinatio　polysyllogistica；　which　is　a　series　of　syllogisms；　that

can　be　continued　either　on　the　side　of　the　conditions　（per

prosyllogismos）　or　of　the　conditioned　（per　episyllogismos）　to　an

indefinite　extent。

　　But　we　very　soon　perceive　that　the　chain　or　series　of　prosyllogisms；

that　is；　of　deduced　cognitions　on　the　side　of　the　grounds　or

conditions　of　a　given　cognition；　in　other　words；　the　ascending

series　of　syllogisms　must　have　a　very　different　relation　to　the

faculty　of　reason　from　that　of　the　descending　series；　that　is；　the

progressive　procedure　of　reason　on　the　side　of　the　conditioned　by

means　of　episyllogisms。　For；　as　in　the　former　case　the　cognition

（conclusio）　is　given　only　as　conditioned；　reason　can　attain　to　this

cognition　only　under　the　presupposition　that　all　the　members　of　the

series　on　the　side　of　the　conditions　are　given　（totality　in　the　series

of　premisses）；　because　only　under　this　supposition　is　the　judgement　we

may　be　considering　possible　a　priori；　while　on　the　side　of　the

conditioned　or　the　inferences；　only　an　incomplete　and　becoming；　and

not　a　presupposed　or　given　series；　consequently　only　a　potential

progression；　is　cogitated。　Hence；　when　a　cognition　is　contemplated

as　conditioned；　reason　is　compelled　to　consider　the　series　of

conditions　in　an　ascending　line　as　completed　and　given　in　their

totality。　But　if　the　very　same　condition　is　considered　at　the　same

time　as　the　condition　of　other　cognitions；　which　together　constitute　a

series　of　inferences　or　consequences　in　a　des