the critique of pure reason- 第70部分

the　contradictory　nature　of　the　general　cognitions　of　reason　and　its

causes。　Transcendental　antithetic　is　an　investigation　into　the

antinomy　of　pure　reason；　its　causes　and　result。　If　we　employ　our

reason　not　merely　in　the　application　of　the　principles　of　the

understanding　to　objects　of　experience；　but　venture　with　it　beyond

these　boundaries；　there　arise　certain　sophistical　propositions　or

theorems。　These　assertions　have　the　following　peculiarities：　They

can　find　neither　confirmation　nor　confutation　in　experience；　and

each　is　in　itself　not　only　self…consistent；　but　possesses　conditions

of　its　necessity　in　the　very　nature　of　reason…　only　that；　unluckily；

there　exist　just　as　valid　and　necessary　grounds　for　maintaining　the

contrary　proposition。

　　The　questions　which　naturally　arise　in　the　consideration　of　this

dialectic　of　pure　reason；　are　therefore：　1st。　In　what　propositions

is　pure　reason　unavoidably　subject　to　an　antinomy？　2nd。　What　are　the

causes　of　this　antinomy？　3rd。　Whether　and　in　what　way　can　reason

free　itself　from　this　self…contradiction？

　　A　dialectical　proposition　or　theorem　of　pure　reason　must；

according　to　what　has　been　said；　be　distinguishable　from　all

sophistical　propositions；　by　the　fact　that　it　is　not　an　answer　to　an

arbitrary　question；　which　may　be　raised　at　the　mere　pleasure　of　any

person；　but　to　one　which　human　reason　must　necessarily　encounter　in

its　progress。　In　the　second　place；　a　dialectical　proposition；　with　its

opposite；　does　not　carry　the　appearance　of　a　merely　artificial

illusion；　which　disappears　as　soon　as　it　is　investigated；　but　a

natural　and　unavoidable　illusion；　which；　even　when　we　are　no　longer

deceived　by　it；　continues　to　mock　us　and；　although　rendered

harmless；　can　never　be　completely　removed。

　　This　dialectical　doctrine　will　not　relate　to　the　unity　of

understanding　in　empirical　conceptions；　but　to　the　unity　of　reason

in　pure　ideas。　The　conditions　of　this　doctrine　are…　inasmuch　as　it

must；　as　a　synthesis　according　to　rules；　be　conformable　to　the

understanding；　and　at　the　same　time　as　the　absolute　unity　of　the

synthesis；　to　the　reason…　that；　if　it　is　adequate　to　the　unity　of

reason；　it　is　too　great　for　the　understanding；　if　according　with　the

understanding；　it　is　too　small　for　the　reason。　Hence　arises　a　mutual

opposition；　which　cannot　be　avoided；　do　what　we　will。

　　These　sophistical　assertions　of　dialectic　open；　as　it　were；　a

battle…field；　where　that　side　obtains　the　victory　which　has　been

permitted　to　make　the　attack；　and　he　is　compelled　to　yield　who　has

been　unfortunately　obliged　to　stand　on　the　defensive。　And　hence；

champions　of　ability；　whether　on　the　right　or　on　the　wrong　side；　are

certain　to　carry　away　the　crown　of　victory；　if　they　only　take　care

to　have　the　right　to　make　the　last　attack；　and　are　not　obliged　to

sustain　another　onset　from　their　opponent。　We　can　easily　believe

that　this　arena　has　been　often　trampled　by　the　feet　of　combatants；

that　many　victories　have　been　obtained　on　both　sides；　but　that　the

last　victory；　decisive　of　the　affair　between　the　contending　parties；

was　won　by　him　who　fought　for　the　right；　only　if　his　adversary　was

forbidden　to　continue　the　tourney。　As　impartial　umpires；　we　must　lay

aside　entirely　the　consideration　whether　the　combatants　are　fighting

for　the　right　or　for　the　wrong　side；　for　the　true　or　for　the　false；

and　allow　the　combat　to　be　first　decided。　Perhaps；　after　they　have

wearied　more　than　injured　each　other；　they　will　discover　the

nothingness　of　their　cause　of　quarrel　and　part　good　friends。

　　This　method　of　watching；　or　rather　of　originating；　a　conflict　of

assertions；　not　for　the　purpose　of　finally　deciding　in　favour　of

either　side；　but　to　discover　whether　the　object　of　the　struggle　is　not

a　mere　illusion；　which　each　strives　in　vain　to　reach；　but　which

would　be　no　gain　even　when　reached…　this　procedure；　I　say；　may　be

termed　the　sceptical　method。　It　is　thoroughly　distinct　from

scepticism…　the　principle　of　a　technical　and　scientific　ignorance；

which　undermines　the　foundations　of　all　knowledge；　in　order；　if

possible；　to　destroy　our　belief　and　confidence　therein。　For　the

sceptical　method　aims　at　certainty；　by　endeavouring　to　discover　in　a

conflict　of　this　kind；　conducted　honestly　and　intelligently　on　both

sides；　the　point　of　misunderstanding；　just　as　wise　legislators　derive；

from　the　embarrassment　of　judges　in　lawsuits；　information　in　regard　to

the　defective　and　ill…defined　parts　of　their　statutes。　The　antinomy

which　reveals　itself　in　the　application　of　laws；　is　for　our　limited

wisdom　the　best　criterion　of　legislation。　For　the　attention　of　reason；

which　in　abstract　speculation　does　not　easily　become　conscious　of

its　errors；　is　thus　roused　to　the　momenta　in　the　determination　of

its　principles。

　　But　this　sceptical　method　is　essentially　peculiar　to

transcendental　philosophy；　and　can　perhaps　be　dispensed　with　in

every　other　field　of　investigation。　In　mathematics　its　use　would　be

absurd；　because　in　it　no　false　assertions　can　long　remain　hidden；

inasmuch　as　its　demonstrations　must　always　proceed　under　the

guidance　of　pure　intuition；　and　by　means　of　an　always　evident

synthesis。　In　experimental　philosophy；　doubt　and　delay　may　be　very

useful；　but　no　misunderstanding　is　possible；　which　cannot　be　easily

removed；　and　in　experience　means　of　solving　the　difficulty　and　putting

an　end　to　the　dissension　must　at　last　be　found；　whether　sooner　or

later。　Moral　philosophy　can　always　exhibit　its　principles；　with

their　practical　consequences；　in　concreto…　at　least　in　possible

experiences；　and　thus　escape　the　mistakes　and　ambiguities　of

abstraction。　But　transcendental　propositions；　which　lay　claim　to

insight　beyond　the　region　of　possible　experience；　cannot；　on　the　one

hand；　exhibit　their　abstract　synthesis　in　any　a　priori　intuition；　nor；

on　the　other；　expose　a　lurking　error　by　the　help　of　experience。

Transcendental　reason；　therefore；　presents　us　with　no　other

criterion　than　that　of　an　attempt　to　reconcile　such　assertions；　and

for　this　purpose　to　permit　a　free　and　unrestrained　conflict　between

them。　And　this　we　now　proceed　to　arrange。*



　　*The　antinomies　stand　in　the　order　of　the　four　transcendental

ideas　above　detailed。





　　　　　　　　　　FIRST　CONFLICT　OF　THE　TRANSCENDENTAL　IDEAS。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　THESIS。



　　　　　The　world　has　a　beginning　in　time；　and　is　also　limited　in

regard　to　space。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。



　　Granted　that　the　world　has　no　beginning　in　time；　up　to　every　given

moment　of　time；　an　eternity　must　have　elapsed；　and　therewith　passed

away　an　infinite　series　of　successive　conditions　or　states　of　things

in　the　world。　Now　the　infinity　of　a　series　consists　in　the　fact　that

it　never　can　be　completed　by　means　of　a　successive　synthesis。　It

follows　that　an　infinite　series　already　elapsed　is　impossible　and

that；　consequently；　a　beginning　of　the　world　is　a　necessary

condition　of　its　existence。　And　this　was　the　first　thing　to　be　proved。

　　As　regards　the　second；　let　us　take　the　opposite　for　granted。　In　this

case；　the　world　must　be　an　infinite　given　total　of　coexistent

things。　Now　we　cannot　cogitate　the　dimensions　of　a　quantity；　which

is　not　given　within　certain　limits　of　an　intuition；*　in　any　other

way　than　by　means　of　the　synthesis　of　its　parts；　and　the　total　of　such

a　quantity　only　by　means　of　a　completed　synthesis；　or　the　repeated

addition　of　unity　to　itself。　Accordingly；　to　cogitate　the　world；　which

fills　all　spaces；　as　a　whole；　the　successive　synthesis　of　the　parts　of

an　infinite　world　must　be　looked　upon　as　completed；　that　is　to　say；　an

infinite　time　must　be　regarded　as　having　elapsed　in　the　enumeration　of

all　co…existing　things；　which　is　impossible。　For　this　reason　an

infinite　aggregate　of　actual　things　cannot　be　considered　as　a　given

whole；　consequently；　not　as　a　contemporaneously　given　whole。　The　world

is　consequently；　as　regards　extension　in　space；　not　infinite；　but

enclosed　in　limits。　And　this　was　the　second　thing　to　be　proved。



　　*We　may　consider　an　undetermined　quantity　as　a　whole；　when　it　is

enclosed　within　limits；　although　we　cannot　construct　or　ascertain

its　totality　by　measurement；　that　is；　by　the　successive　synthesis　of

its　parts。　For　its　limits　of　themselves　determine　its　completeness

as　a　whole。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ANTITHESIS。



　　The　world　has　no　beginning；　and　no　limits　in　space；　but　is；　in

relation　both　to　time　and　space；　infinite。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　PROOF。



　　For　let　it　be　granted　that　it　has　a　beginning。　A　beginning　is　an

existence　which　is　preceded　by　a　time　in　which　the　thing　does　not

exist。　On　the　above　supposition；　it　follows　that　there　must　have

been　a　time　in　which　the　world　did　not　exist；　that　is；　a　void　time。

But　in　a　void　time　the　origination　of　a　thing　is　impossible；　because

no　part　of　any　such　time　contains　a　distinctive　condition　of　being；　in

preference　to　that　of　non…being　（whether　the　supposed　thing

originate　of　itself；　or　by　means　of　some　other　cause）。　Consequently；

many　series　of　things　may　have　a　beginning　in　the　world；　but　the　world

itself　cannot　have　a　beginning；　and　is；　therefore；　in　relation　to　past

time；　infinite。

　　As　regards　the　second　statement；　let　us　first　take　the　opposite

for　granted…　that　the　world　is　finite　and　limited　in　space；　it　follows

that　it　must　exist　in　a　void　space；　which　is　not　limited。　We　should

therefore　meet　not　only　with　a　relation　of　things　in　space；　but　also　a

relation　of　things　to　space。　Now；　as　the　world　is　an　absolute　whole；

out　of　and　beyond　which　no　object　of　intuition；　and　consequently　no

correlate　to　which　can　be　discovered；　this　relation　of　the　world　to

a　void　space　is　merely　a　relation　to　no　object。　But　such　a　relation；

and　consequently　the　limitation　of　the　world　by　void　space；　is

nothing。　Consequently；　the　world；　as　regards　space；　is　not　limited；

that　is；　it　is　infinite　in　regard　to　extension。*