the critique of pure reason- 第78部分

questions　that　may　arise　within　its　own　sphere　（questiones

domesticae）；　although；　up　to　a　certain　time；　these　answers　may　not

have　been　discovered。　There　are；　in　addition　to　transcendental

philosophy；　only　two　pure　sciences　of　reason；　the　one　with　a

speculative；　the　other　with　a　practical　content…　pure　mathematics

and　pure　ethics。　Has　any　one　ever　heard　it　alleged　that；　from　our

complete　and　necessary　ignorance　of　the　conditions；　it　is　uncertain

what　exact　relation　the　diameter　of　a　circle　bears　to　the　circle　in

rational　or　irrational　numbers？　By　the　former　the　sum　cannot　be

given　exactly；　by　the　latter　only　approximately；　and　therefore　we

decide　that　the　impossibility　of　a　solution　of　the　question　is

evident。　Lambert　presented　us　with　a　demonstration　of　this。　In　the

general　principles　of　morals　there　can　be　nothing　uncertain；　for　the

propositions　are　either　utterly　without　meaning；　or　must　originate

solely　in　our　rational　conceptions。　On　the　other　hand；　there　must　be

in　physical　science　an　infinite　number　of　conjectures；　which　can　never

become　certainties；　because　the　phenomena　of　nature　are　not　given　as

objects　dependent　on　our　conceptions。　The　key　to　the　solution　of

such　questions　cannot；　therefore；　be　found　in　our　conceptions；　or　in

pure　thought；　but　must　lie　without　us　and　for　that　reason　is　in　many

cases　not　to　be　discovered；　and　consequently　a　satisfactory

explanation　cannot　be　expected。　The　questions　of　transcendental

analytic；　which　relate　to　the　deduction　of　our　pure　cognition；　are　not

to　be　regarded　as　of　the　same　kind　as　those　mentioned　above；　for　we

are　not　at　present　treating　of　the　certainty　of　judgements　in　relation

to　the　origin　of　our　conceptions；　but　only　of　that　certainty　in

relation　to　objects。

　　We　cannot；　therefore；　escape　the　responsibility　of　at　least　a

critical　solution　of　the　questions　of　reason；　by　complaints　of　the

limited　nature　of　our　faculties；　and　the　seemingly　humble　confession

that　it　is　beyond　the　power　of　our　reason　to　decide；　whether　the　world

has　existed　from　all　eternity　or　had　a　beginning…　whether　it　is

infinitely　extended；　or　enclosed　within　certain　limits…　whether

anything　in　the　world　is　simple；　or　whether　everything　must　be　capable

of　infinite　divisibility…　whether　freedom　can　originate　phenomena；

or　whether　everything　is　absolutely　dependent　on　the　laws　and　order　of

nature…　and；　finally；　whether　there　exists　a　being　that　is

completely　unconditioned　and　necessary；　or　whether　the　existence　of

everything　is　conditioned　and　consequently　dependent　on　something

external　to　itself；　and　therefore　in　its　own　nature　contingent。　For

all　these　questions　relate　to　an　object；　which　can　be　given　nowhere

else　than　in　thought。　This　object　is　the　absolutely　unconditioned

totality　of　the　synthesis　of　phenomena。　If　the　conceptions　in　our

minds　do　not　assist　us　to　some　certain　result　in　regard　to　these

problems；　we　must　not　defend　ourselves　on　the　plea　that　the　object

itself　remains　hidden　from　and　unknown　to　us。　For　no　such　thing　or

object　can　be　given…　it　is　not　to　be　found　out　of　the　idea　in　our

minds。　We　must　seek　the　cause　of　our　failure　in　our　idea　itself；　which

is　an　insoluble　problem　and　in　regard　to　which　we　obstinately　assume

that　there　exists　a　real　object　corresponding　and　adequate　to　it。　A

clear　explanation　of　the　dialectic　which　lies　in　our　conception；

will　very　soon　enable　us　to　come　to　a　satisfactory　decision　in

regard　to　such　a　question。

　　The　pretext　that　we　are　unable　to　arrive　at　certainty　in　regard　to

these　problems　may　be　met　with　this　question；　which　requires　at

least　a　plain　answer：　〃From　what　source　do　the　ideas　originate；　the

solution　of　which　involves　you　in　such　difficulties？　Are　you　seeking

for　an　explanation　of　certain　phenomena；　and　do　you　expect　these　ideas

to　give　you　the　principles　or　the　rules　of　this　explanation？〃　Let　it

be　granted；　that　all　nature　was　laid　open　before　you；　that　nothing　was

hid　from　your　senses　and　your　consciousness。　Still；　you　could　not

cognize　in　concreto　the　object　of　your　ideas　in　any　experience。　For

what　is　demanded　is　not　only　this　full　and　complete　intuition；　but

also　a　complete　synthesis　and　the　consciousness　of　its　absolute

totality；　and　this　is　not　possible　by　means　of　any　empirical

cognition。　It　follows　that　your　question…　your　idea…　is　by　no　means

necessary　for　the　explanation　of　any　phenomenon；　and　the　idea　cannot

have　been　in　any　sense　given　by　the　object　itself。　For　such　an

object　can　never　be　presented　to　us；　because　it　cannot　be　given　by　any

possible　experience。　Whatever　perceptions　you　may　attain　to；　you　are

still　surrounded　by　conditions…　in　space；　or　in　time…　and　you　cannot

discover　anything　unconditioned；　nor　can　you　decide　whether　this

unconditioned　is　to　be　placed　in　an　absolute　beginning　of　the

synthesis；　or　in　an　absolute　totality　of　the　series　without　beginning。

A　whole；　in　the　empirical　signification　of　the　term；　is　always

merely　comparative。　The　absolute　whole　of　quantity　（the　universe）；

of　division；　of　derivation；　of　the　condition　of　existence；　with　the

question…　whether　it　is　to　be　produced　by　finite　or　infinite

synthesis；　no　possible　experience　can　instruct　us　concerning。　You　will

not；　for　example；　be　able　to　explain　the　phenomena　of　a　body　in　the

least　degree　better；　whether　you　believe　it　to　consist　of　simple；　or

of　composite　parts；　for　a　simple　phenomenon…　and　just　as　little　an

infinite　series　of　composition…　can　never　be　presented　to　your

perception。　Phenomena　require　and　admit　of　explanation；　only　in　so　far

as　the　conditions　of　that　explanation　are　given　in　perception；　but　the

sum　total　of　that　which　is　given　in　phenomena；　considered　as　an

absolute　whole；　is　itself　a　perception…　and　we　cannot　therefore　seek

for　explanations　of　this　whole　beyond　itself；　in　other　perceptions。

The　explanation　of　this　whole　is　the　proper　object　of　the

transcendental　problems　of　pure　reason。

　　Although；　therefore；　the　solution　of　these　problems　is

unattainable　through　experience；　we　must　not　permit　ourselves　to　say

that　it　is　uncertain　how　the　object　of　our　inquiries　is　constituted。

For　the　object　is　in　our　own　mind　and　cannot　be　discovered　in

experience；　and　we　have　only　to　take　care　that　our　thoughts　are

consistent　with　each　other；　and　to　avoid　falling　into　the　amphiboly　of

regarding　our　idea　as　a　representation　of　an　object　empirically　given；

and　therefore　to　be　cognized　according　to　the　laws　of　experience。　A

dogmatical　solution　is　therefore　not　only　unsatisfactory　but

impossible。　The　critical　solution；　which　may　be　a　perfectly　certain

one；　does　not　consider　the　question　objectively；　but　proceeds　by

inquiring　into　the　basis　of　the　cognition　upon　which　the　question

rests。



　　　　　SECTION　V。　Sceptical　Exposition　of　the　Cosmological　Problems

　　　　　　　　　　　presented　in　the　four　Transcendental　Ideas。



　　We　should　be　quite　willing　to　desist　from　the　demand　of　a　dogmatical

answer　to　our　questions；　if　we　understood　beforehand　that；　be　the

answer　what　it　may；　it　would　only　serve　to　increase　our　ignorance；

to　throw　us　from　one　incomprehensibility　into　another；　from　one

obscurity　into　another　still　greater；　and　perhaps　lead　us　into

irreconcilable　contradictions。　If　a　dogmatical　affirmative　or　negative

answer　is　demanded；　is　it　at　all　prudent　to　set　aside　the　probable

grounds　of　a　solution　which　lie　before　us　and　to　take　into

consideration　what　advantage　we　shall　gain；　if　the　answer　is　to　favour

the　one　side　or　the　other？　If　it　happens　that　in　both　cases　the　answer

is　mere　nonsense；　we　have　in　this　an　irresistible　summons　to　institute

a　critical　investigation　of　the　question；　for　the　purpose　of

discovering　whether　it　is　based　on　a　groundless　presupposition　and

relates　to　an　idea；　the　falsity　of　which　would　be　more　easily

exposed　in　its　application　and　consequences　than　in　the　mere

representation　of　its　content。　This　is　the　great　utility　of　the

sceptical　mode　of　treating　the　questions　addressed　by　pure　reason　to

itself。　By　this　method　we　easily　rid　ourselves　of　the　confusions　of

dogmatism；　and　establish　in　its　place　a　temperate　criticism；　which；　as

a　genuine　cathartic；　will　successfully　remove　the　presumptuous　notions

of　philosophy　and　their　consequence…　the　vain　pretension　to

universal　science。

　　If；　then；　I　could　understand　the　nature　of　a　cosmological　idea　and

perceive；　before　I　entered　on　the　discussion　of　the　subject　at　all；

that；　whatever　side　of　the　question　regarding　the　unconditioned　of　the

regressive　synthesis　of　phenomena　it　favoured…　it　must　either　be　too

great　or　too　small　for　every　conception　of　the　understanding…　I

would　be　able　to　comprehend　how　the　idea；　which　relates　to　an　object

of　experience…　an　experience　which　must　be　adequate　to　and　in

accordance　with　a　possible　conception　of　the　understanding…　must　be

completely　void　and　without　significance；　inasmuch　as　its　object　is

inadequate；　consider　it　as　we　may。　And　this　is　actually　the　case

with　all　cosmological　conceptions；　which；　for　the　reason　above

mentioned；　involve　reason；　so　long　as　it　remains　attached　to　them；

in　an　unavoidable　antinomy。　For　suppose：

　　First；　that　the　world　has　no　beginning…　in　this　case　it　is　too　large

for　our　conception；　for　this　conception；　which　consists　in　a

successive　regress；　cannot　overtake　the　whole　eternity　that　has

elapsed。　Grant　that　it　has　a　beginning；　it　is　then　too　small　for　the

conception　of　the　understanding。　For；　as　a　beginning　presupposes　a

time　preceding；　it　cannot　be　unconditioned；　and　the　law　of　the

empirical　employment　of　the　understanding　imposes　the　necessity　of

looking　for　a　higher　condition　of　time；　and　the　world　is；　therefore；

evidently　too　small　for　this　law。

　　The　same　is　the　case　with　the　double　answer　to　the　question

regarding　the　extent；　in　space；　of　the　world。　For；　if　it　is　infinite

and　unlimited；　it　must　be　too　large　for　every　possible　empirical

conception。　If　it　is　finite　and　limited；　w