the critique of pure reason- 第82部分

empirical　limits　as　absolute。　It　is；　hence；　a　principle　of　reason；

which；　as　a　rule；　dictates　how　we　ought　to　proceed　in　our　empirical

regress；　but　is　unable　to　anticipate　or　indicate　prior　to　the

empirical　regress　what　is　given　in　the　object　itself。　I　have　termed　it

for　this　reason　a　regulative　principle　of　reason；　while　the

principle　of　the　absolute　totality　of　the　series　of　conditions；　as

existing　in　itself　and　given　in　the　object；　is　a　constitutive

cosmological　principle。　This　distinction　will　at　once　demonstrate

the　falsehood　of　the　constitutive　principle；　and　prevent　us　from

attributing　（by　a　transcendental　subreptio）　objective　reality　to　an

idea；　which　is　valid　only　as　a　rule。

　　In　order　to　understand　the　proper　meaning　of　this　rule　of　pure

reason；　we　must　notice　first　that　it　cannot　tell　us　what　the　object

is；　but　only　how　the　empirical　regress　is　to　be　proceeded　with　in

order　to　attain　to　the　complete　conception　of　the　object。　If　it　gave

us　any　information　in　respect　to　the　former　statement；　it　would　be　a

constitutive　principle…　a　principle　impossible　from　the　nature　of　pure

reason。　It　will　not　therefore　enable　us　to　establish　any　such

conclusions　as：　〃The　series　of　conditions　for　a　given　conditioned　is

in　itself　finite。〃　or；　〃It　is　infinite。〃　For；　in　this　case；　we

should　be　cogitating　in　the　mere　idea　of　absolute　totality；　an

object　which　is　not　and　cannot　be　given　in　experience；　inasmuch　as

we　should　be　attributing　a　reality　objective　and　independent　of　the

empirical　synthesis；　to　a　series　of　phenomena。　This　idea　of　reason

cannot　then　be　regarded　as　valid…　except　as　a　rule　for　the

regressive　synthesis　in　the　series　of　conditions；　according　to　which

we　must　proceed　from　the　conditioned；　through　all　intermediate　and

subordinate　conditions；　up　to　the　unconditioned；　although　this　goal　is

unattained　and　unattainable。　For　the　absolutely　unconditioned　cannot

be　discovered　in　the　sphere　of　experience。

　　We　now　proceed　to　determine　clearly　our　notion　of　a　synthesis

which　can　never　be　complete。　There　are　two　terms　commonly　employed　for

this　purpose。　These　terms　are　regarded　as　expressions　of　different　and

distinguishable　notions；　although　the　ground　of　the　distinction　has

never　been　clearly　exposed。　The　term　employed　by　the　mathematicians　is

progressus　in　infinitum。　The　philosophers　prefer　the　expression

progressus　in　indefinitum。　Without　detaining　the　reader　with　an

examination　of　the　reasons　for　such　a　distinction；　or　with　remarks

on　the　right　or　wrong　use　of　the　terms；　I　shall　endeavour　clearly　to

determine　these　conceptions；　so　far　as　is　necessary　for　the　purpose　in

this　Critique。

　　We　may；　with　propriety；　say　of　a　straight　line；　that　it　may　be

produced　to　infinity。　In　this　case　the　distinction　between　a

progressus　in　infinitum　and　a　progressus　in　indefinitum　is　a　mere

piece　of　subtlety。　For；　although　when　we　say；　〃Produce　a　straight

line；〃　it　is　more　correct　to　say　in　indefinitum　than　in　infinitum；

because　the　former　means；　〃Produce　it　as　far　as　you　please；〃　the

second；　〃You　must　not　cease　to　produce　it〃；　the　expression　in

infinitum　is；　when　we　are　speaking　of　the　power　to　do　it；　perfectly

correct；　for　we　can　always　make　it　longer　if　we　please…　on　to

infinity。　And　this　remark　holds　good　in　all　cases；　when　we　speak　of

a　progressus；　that　is；　an　advancement　from　the　condition　to　the

conditioned；　this　possible　advancement　always　proceeds　to　infinity。　We

may　proceed　from　a　given　pair　in　the　descending　line　of　generation

from　father　to　son；　and　cogitate　a　never…ending　line　of　descendants

from　it。　For　in　such　a　case　reason　does　not　demand　absolute　totality

in　the　series；　because　it　does　not　presuppose　it　as　a　condition　and　as

given　（datum）；　but　merely　as　conditioned；　and　as　capable　of　being

given　（dabile）。

　　Very　different　is　the　case　with　the　problem：　〃How　far　the　regress；

which　ascends　from　the　given　conditioned　to　the　conditions；　must

extend〃；　whether　I　can　say：　〃It　is　a　regress　in　infinitum；〃　or　only

〃in　indefinitum〃；　and　whether；　for　example；　setting　out　from　the　human

beings　at　present　alive　in　the　world；　I　may　ascend　in　the　series　of

their　ancestors；　in　infinitum…　mr　whether　all　that　can　be　said　is；

that　so　far　as　I　have　proceeded；　I　have　discovered　no　empirical　ground

for　considering　the　series　limited；　so　that　I　am　justified；　and

indeed；　compelled　to　search　for　ancestors　still　further　back；　although

I　am　not　obliged　by　the　idea　of　reason　to　presuppose　them。

　　My　answer　to　this　question　is：　〃If　the　series　is　given　in

empirical　intuition　as　a　whole；　the　regress　in　the　series　of　its

internal　conditions　proceeds　in　infinitum；　but；　if　only　one　member

of　the　series　is　given；　from　which　the　regress　is　to　proceed　to

absolute　totality；　the　regress　is　possible　only　in　indefinitum。〃　For

example；　the　division　of　a　portion　of　matter　given　within　certain

limits…　of　a　body；　that　is…　proceeds　in　infinitum。　For；　as　the

condition　of　this　whole　is　its　part；　and　the　condition　of　the　part　a

part　of　the　part；　and　so　on；　and　as　in　this　regress　of　decomposition

an　unconditioned　indivisible　member　of　the　series　of　conditions　is　not

to　be　found；　there　are　no　reasons　or　grounds　in　experience　for

stopping　in　the　division；　but；　on　the　contrary；　the　more　remote

members　of　the　division　are　actually　and　empirically　given　prior　to

this　division。　That　is　to　say；　the　division　proceeds　to　infinity。　On

the　other　hand；　the　series　of　ancestors　of　any　given　human　being　is

not　given；　in　its　absolute　totality；　in　any　experience；　and　yet　the

regress　proceeds　from　every　genealogical　member　of　this　series　to

one　still　higher；　and　does　not　meet　with　any　empirical　limit

presenting　an　absolutely　unconditioned　member　of　the　series。　But　as

the　members　of　such　a　series　are　not　contained　in　the　empirical

intuition　of　the　whole；　prior　to　the　regress；　this　regress　does　not

proceed　to　infinity；　but　only　in　indefinitum；　that　is；　we　are　called

upon　to　discover　other　and　higher　members；　which　are　themselves　always

conditioned。

　　In　neither　case…　the　regressus　in　infinitum；　nor　the　regressus　in

indefinitum；　is　the　series　of　conditions　to　be　considered　as

actually　infinite　in　the　object　itself。　This　might　be　true　of　things

in　themselves；　but　it　cannot　be　asserted　of　phenomena；　which；　as

conditions　of　each　other；　are　only　given　in　the　empirical　regress

itself。　Hence；　the　question　no　longer　is；　〃What　is　the　quantity　of

this　series　of　conditions　in　itself…　is　it　finite　or　infinite？〃　for　it

is　nothing　in　itself；　but；　〃How　is　the　empirical　regress　to　be

commenced；　and　how　far　ought　we　to　proceed　with　it？〃　And　here　a　signal

distinction　in　the　application　of　this　rule　becomes　apparent。　If　the

whole　is　given　empirically；　it　is　possible　to　recede　in　the　series

of　its　internal　conditions　to　infinity。　But　if　the　whole　is　not　given；

and　can　only　be　given　by　and　through　the　empirical　regress；　I　can　only

say：　〃It　is　possible　to　infinity；　to　proceed　to　still　higher

conditions　in　the　series。〃　In　the　first　case；　I　am　justified　in

asserting　that　more　members　are　empirically　given　in　the　object　than　I

attain　to　in　the　regress　（of　decomposition）。　In　the　second　case；　I

am　justified　only　in　saying；　that　I　can　always　proceed　further　in

the　regress；　because　no　member　of　the　series。　is　given　as　absolutely

conditioned；　and　thus　a　higher　member　is　possible；　and　an　inquiry　with

regard　to　it　is　necessary。　In　the　one　case　it　is　necessary　to　find

other　members　of　the　series；　in　the　other　it　is　necessary　to　inquire

for　others；　inasmuch　as　experience　presents　no　absolute　limitation

of　the　regress。　For；　either　you　do　not　possess　a　perception　which

absolutely　limits　your　empirical　regress；　and　in　this　case　the　regress

cannot　be　regarded　as　complete；　or；　you　do　possess　such　a　limitative

perception；　in　which　case　it　is　not　a　part　of　your　series　（for　that

which　limits　must　be　distinct　from　that　which　is　limited　by　it）；　and

it　is　incumbent　you　to　continue　your　regress　up　to　this　condition；　and

so　on。

　　These　remarks　will　be　placed　in　their　proper　light　by　their

application　in　the　following　section。



　　　　SECTION　IX。　Of　the　Empirical　Use　of　the　Regulative　Principle

　　　　　　　　　of　Reason　with　regard　to　the　Cosmological　Ideas。



　　We　have　shown　that　no　transcendental　use　can　be　made　either　of　the

conceptions　of　reason　or　of　understanding。　We　have　shown；　likewise；

that　the　demand　of　absolute　totality　in　the　series　of　conditions　in

the　world　of　sense　arises　from　a　transcendental　employment　of

reason；　resting　on　the　opinion　that　phenomena　are　to　be　regarded　as

things　in　themselves。　It　follows　that　we　are　not　required　to　answer

the　question　respecting　the　absolute　quantity　of　a　series…　whether

it　is　in　itself　limited　or　unlimited。　We　are　only　called　upon　to

determine　how　far　we　must　proceed　in　the　empirical　regress　from

condition　to　condition；　in　order　to　discover；　in　conformity　with　the

rule　of　reason；　a　full　and　correct　answer　to　the　questions　proposed　by

reason　itself。

　　This　principle　of　reason　is　hence　valid　only　as　a　rule　for　the

extension　of　a　possible　experience…　its　invalidity　as　a　principle

constitutive　of　phenomena　in　themselves　having　been　sufficiently

demonstrated。　And　thus；　too；　the　antinomial　conflict　of　reason　with

itself　is　completely　put　an　end　to；　inasmuch　as　we　have　not　only

presented　a　critical　solution　of　the　fallacy　lurking　in　the　opposite

statements　of　reason；　but　have　shown　the　true　meaning　of　the　ideas

which　gave　rise　to　these　statements。　The　dialectical　principle　of

reason　has；　therefore；　been　changed　into　a　doctrinal　principle。　But　in

fact；　if　this　principle；　in　the　subjective　signification　which　we　have

shown　to　be　its　only　true　sense；　may　be　guaranteed　as　a　principle　of

the　unceasing　extension　of　the　employment　of　our　understanding；　its

influence　and　value　are　just　as　great　as　if　it　were　an　axiom　for　the　a

priori　determination　of　objects。　For　such　an　axiom　co