the critique of pure reason- 第66部分

external；　the　propositions　of　rationalistic　psychology　would　not　begin

with　the　conception　of　a　thinking　being；　but　with　a　reality；　and　the

properties　of　a　thinking　being　in　general　would　be　deduced　from　the

mode　in　which　this　reality　is　cogitated；　after　everything　empirical

had　been　abstracted；　as　is　shown　in　the　following　table：



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　1

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　I　think；



　　　　　　　　　　　　2　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3

　　　　　　　　as　Subject；　　　　　　　　　　　　　　as　simple　Subject；



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　as　identical　Subject；

　　　　　　　　　　　in　every　state　of　my　thought。



　　Now；　inasmuch　as　it　is　not　determined　in　this　second　proposition；

whether　I　can　exist　and　be　cogitated　only　as　subject；　and　not　also

as　a　predicate　of　another　being；　the　conception　of　a　subject　is　here

taken　in　a　merely　logical　sense；　and　it　remains　undetermined；

whether　substance　is　to　be　cogitated　under　the　conception　or　not。

But　in　the　third　proposition；　the　absolute　unity　of　apperception…

the　simple　Ego　in　the　representation　to　which　all　connection　and

separation；　which　constitute　thought；　relate；　is　of　itself

important；　even　although　it　presents　us　with　no　information　about

the　constitution　or　subsistence　of　the　subject。　Apperception　is

something　real；　and　the　simplicity　of　its　nature　is　given　in　the

very　fact　of　its　possibility。　Now　in　space　there　is　nothing　real

that　is　at　the　same　time　simple；　for　points；　which　are　the　only　simple

things　in　space；　are　merely　limits；　but　not　constituent　parts　of

space。　From　this　follows　the　impossibility　of　a　definition　on　the

basis　of　materialism　of　the　constitution　of　my　Ego　as　a　merely

thinking　subject。　But；　because　my　existence　is　considered　in　the　first

proposition　as　given；　for　it　does　not　mean；　〃Every　thinking　being

exists〃　（for　this　would　be　predicating　of　them　absolute　necessity）；

but　only；　〃I　exist　thinking〃；　the　proposition　is　quite　empirical；

and　contains　the　determinability　of　my　existence　merely　in　relation　to

my　representations　in　time。　But　as　I　require　for　this　purpose

something　that　is　permanent；　such　as　is　not　given　in　internal

intuition；　the　mode　of　my　existence；　whether　as　substance　or　as

accident；　cannot　be　determined　by　means　of　this　simple

self…consciousness。　Thus；　if　materialism　is　inadequate　to　explain

the　mode　in　which　I　exist；　spiritualism　is　likewise　as　insufficient；

and　the　conclusion　is　that　we　are　utterly　unable　to　attain　to　any

knowledge　of　the　constitution　of　the　soul；　in　so　far　as　relates　to　the

possibility　of　its　existence　apart　from　external　objects。

　　And；　indeed；　how　should　it　be　possible；　merely　by　the　aid　of　the

unity　of　consciousness…　which　we　cognize　only　for　the　reason　that　it

is　indispensable　to　the　possibility　of　experience…　to　pass　the

bounds　of　experience　（our　existence　in　this　life）；　and　to　extend　our

cognition　to　the　nature　of　all　thinking　beings　by　means　of　the

empirical…　but　in　relation　to　every　sort　of　intuition；　perfectly

undetermined…　proposition；　〃I　think〃？

　　There　does　not　then　exist　any　rational　psychology　as　a　doctrine

furnishing　any　addition　to　our　knowledge　of　ourselves。　It　is　nothing

more　than　a　discipline；　which　sets　impassable　limits　to　speculative

reason　in　this　region　of　thought；　to　prevent　it；　on　the　one　hand；　from

throwing　itself　into　the　arms　of　a　soulless　materialism；　and；　on　the

other；　from　losing　itself　in　the　mazes　of　a　baseless　spiritualism。

It　teaches　us　to　consider　this　refusal　of　our　reason　to　give　any

satisfactory　answer　to　questions　which　reach　beyond　the　limits　of　this

our　human　life；　as　a　hint　to　abandon　fruitless　speculation；　and　to

direct；　to　a　practical　use；　our　knowledge　of　ourselves…　which；

although　applicable　only　to　objects　of　experience；　receives　its

principles　from　a　higher　source；　and　regulates　its　procedure　as　if　our

destiny　reached　far　beyond　the　boundaries　of　experience　and　life。

　　From　all　this　it　is　evident　that　rational　psychology　has　its

origin　in　a　mere　misunderstanding。　The　unity　of　consciousness；　which

lies　at　the　basis　of　the　categories；　is　considered　to　be　an

intuition　of　the　subject　as　an　object；　and　the　category　of　substance

is　applied　to　the　intuition。　But　this　unity　is　nothing　more　than　the

unity　in　thought；　by　which　no　object　is　given；　to　which　therefore

the　category　of　substance…　which　always　presupposes　a　given　intuition…

cannot　be　applied。　Consequently；　the　subject　cannot　be　cognized。　The

subject　of　the　categories　cannot；　therefore；　for　the　very　reason

that　it　cogitates　these；　frame　any　conception　of　itself　as　an　object

of　the　categories；　for；　to　cogitate　these；　it　must　lay　at　the

foundation　its　own　pure　self…consciousness…　the　very　thing　that　it

wishes　to　explain　and　describe。　In　like　manner；　the　subject；　in

which　the　representation　of　time　has　its　basis；　cannot　determine；

for　this　very　reason；　its　own　existence　in　time。　Now；　if　the　latter　is

impossible；　the　former；　as　an　attempt　to　determine　itself　by　means

of　the　categories　as　a　thinking　being　in　general；　is　no　less　so。*



　　*The　〃I　think〃　is；　as　has　been　already　stated；　an　empirical

proposition；　and　contains　the　proposition；　〃I　exist。〃　But　I　cannot

say；　〃Everything；　which　thinks；　exists〃；　for　in　this　case　the　property

of　thought　would　constitute　all　beings　possessing　it；　necessary

being　Hence　my　existence　cannot　be　considered　as　an　inference　from　the

proposition；　〃I　think；〃　as　Descartes　maintained…　because　in　this

case　the　major　premiss；　〃Everything；　which　thinks；　exists；〃　must

precede…　but　the　two　propositions　are　identical。　The　proposition；　〃I

think；〃　expresses　an　undetermined　empirical　intuition；　that　perception

（proving　consequently　that　sensation；　which　must　belong　to

sensibility；　lies　at　the　foundation　of　this　proposition）；　but　it

precedes　experience；　whose　province　it　is　to　determine　an　object　of

perception　by　means　of　the　categories　in　relation　to　time；　and

existence　in　this　proposition　is　not　a　category；　as　it　does　not

apply　to　an　undetermined　given　object；　but　only　to　one　of　which　we

have　a　conception；　and　about　which　we　wish　to　know　whether　it　does

or　does　not　exist；　out　of；　and　apart　from　this　conception。　An

undetermined　perception　signifies　here　merely　something　real　that

has　been　given；　only；　however；　to　thought　in　general…　but　not　as　a

phenomenon；　nor　as　a　thing　in　itself　（noumenon）；　but　only　as　something

that　really　exists；　and　is　designated　as　such　in　the　proposition；　〃I

think。〃　For　it　must　be　remarked　that；　when　I　call　the　proposition；

〃I　think；〃　an　empirical　proposition；　I　do　not　thereby　mean　that　the

Ego　in　the　proposition　is　an　empirical　representation；　on　the

contrary；　it　is　purely　intellectual；　because　it　belongs　to　thought

in　general。　But　without　some　empirical　representation；　which

presents　to　the　mind　material　for　thought；　the　mental　act；　〃I

think；〃　would　not　take　place；　and　the　empirical　is　only　the

condition　of　the　application　or　employment　of　the　pure　intellectual

faculty。



　　Thus；　then；　appears　the　vanity　of　the　hope　of　establishing　a

cognition　which　is　to　extend　its　rule　beyond　the　limits　of　experience…

a　cognition　which　is　one　of　the　highest　interests　of　humanity；　and

thus　is　proved　the　futility　of　the　attempt　of　speculative　philosophy

in　this　region　of　thought。　But；　in　this　interest　of　thought；　the

severity　of　criticism　has　rendered　to　reason　a　not　unimportant

service；　by　the　demonstration　of　the　impossibility　of　making　any

dogmatical　affirmation　concerning　an　object　of　experience　beyond　the

boundaries　of　experience。　She　has　thus　fortified　reason　against　all

affirmations　of　the　contrary。　Now；　this　can　be　accomplished　in　only

two　ways。　Either　our　proposition　must　be　proved　apodeictically；　or；　if

this　is　unsuccessful；　the　sources　of　this　inability　must　be　sought

for；　and；　if　these　are　discovered　to　exist　in　the　natural　and

necessary　limitation　of　our　reason；　our　opponents　must　submit　to　the

same　law　of　renunciation　and　refrain　from　advancing　claims　to　dogmatic

assertion。

　　But　the　right；　say　rather　the　necessity　to　admit　a　future　life；　upon

principles　of　the　practical　conjoined　with　the　speculative　use　of

reason；　has　lost　nothing　by　this　renunciation；　for　the　merely

speculative　proof　has　never　had　any　influence　upon　the　common　reason

of　men。　It　stands　upon　the　point　of　a　hair；　so　that　even　the　schools

have　been　able　to　preserve　it　from　falling　only　by　incessantly

discussing　it　and　spinning　it　like　a　top；　and　even　in　their　eyes　it

has　never　been　able　to　present　any　safe　foundation　for　the　erection　of

a　theory。　The　proofs　which　have　been　current　among　men；　preserve　their

value　undiminished；　nay；　rather　gain　in　clearness　and

unsophisticated　power；　by　the　rejection　of　the　dogmatical

assumptions　of　speculative　reason。　For　reason　is　thus　confined

within　her　own　peculiar　province…　the　arrangement　of　ends　or　aims；

which　is　at　the　same　time　the　arrangement　of　nature；　and；　as　a

practical　faculty；　without　limiting　itself　to　the　latter；　it　is

justified　in　extending　the　former；　and　with　it　our　own　existence；

beyond　the　boundaries　of　experience　and　life。　If　we　turn　our　attention

to　the　analogy　of　the　nature　of　living　beings　in　this　world；　in　the

consideration　of　which　reason　is　obliged　to　accept　as　a　principle　that

no　organ；　no　faculty；　no　appetite　is　useless；　and　that　nothing　is

superfluous；　nothing　disproportionate　to　its　use；　nothing　unsuited

to　its　end；　but　that；　on　the　contrary；　everything　is　perfectly

conformed　to　its　destination　in　life…　we　shall　find　that　man；　who

alone　is　the　final　end　and　aim　of　this　order；　is　still　the　only　animal

that　seems　to　be　excepted　from　it。　For　his　natural　gifts…　not　merely

as　regards　the　talents　and　motives　that　may　incite　him　to　employ　them；

but　especially　the　moral　law　in　him…　stretch　so　far　beyond　all　mere

earthly　utility　and　advantage；　that　he　feels　himself　bound　to　prize

the　mere　consciousness　of　probity；　apart　from　all　advantage