按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
principles of all logical judging of our cognitions。 This part of
logic may； therefore； be called analytic； and is at least the negative
test of truth； because all cognitions must first of an be estimated
and tried according to these laws before we proceed to investigate
them in respect of their content； in order to discover whether they
contain positive truth in regard to their object。 Because； however；
the mere form of a cognition； accurately as it may accord with logical
laws； is insufficient to supply us with material （objective） truth； no
one； by means of logic alone； can venture to predicate anything of
or decide concerning objects； unless he has obtained； independently of
logic； well…grounded information about them； in order afterwards to
examine； according to logical laws； into the use and connection； in
a cohering whole； of that information； or； what is still better；
merely to test it by them。 Notwithstanding； there lies so seductive
a charm in the possession of a specious art like this… an art which
gives to all our cognitions the form of the understanding； although
with respect to the content thereof we may be sadly deficient… that
general logic； which is merely a canon of judgement； has been employed
as an organon for the actual production； or rather for the semblance
of production； of objective assertions； and has thus been grossly
misapplied。 Now general logic； in its assumed character of organon； is
called dialectic。
Different as are the significations in which the ancients used
this term for a science or an art； we may safely infer； from their
actual employment of it； that with them it was nothing else than a
logic of illusion… a sophistical art for giving ignorance； nay； even
intentional sophistries； the colouring of truth； in which the
thoroughness of procedure which logic requires was imitated； and their
topic employed to cloak the empty pretensions。 Now it may be taken
as a safe and useful warning； that general logic； considered as an
organon； must always be a logic of illusion； that is； be
dialectical； for； as it teaches us nothing whatever respecting the
content of our cognitions； but merely the formal conditions of their
accordance with the understanding； which do not relate to and are
quite indifferent in respect of objects； any attempt to employ it as
an instrument （organon） in order to extend and enlarge the range of
our knowledge must end in mere prating； any one being able to maintain
or oppose； with some appearance of truth； any single assertion
whatever。
Such instruction is quite unbeing the dignity of philosophy。
For these reasons we have chosen to denominate this part of logic
dialectic； in the sense of a critique of dialectical illusion； and
we wish the term to be so understood in this place。
IV。 Of the Division of Transcendental Logic into Transcendental
Analytic and Dialectic。
In transcendental logic we isolate the understanding （as in
transcendental aesthetic the sensibility） and select from our
cognition merely that part of thought which has its origin in the
understanding alone。 The exercise of this pure cognition； however；
depends upon this as its condition； that objects to which it may be
applied be given to us in intuition； for without intuition the whole
of our cognition is without objects； and is therefore quite void。 That
part of transcendental logic； then； which treats of the elements of
pure cognition of the understanding； and of the principles without
which no object at all can be thought； is transcendental analytic； and
at the same time a logic of truth。 For no cognition can contradict it；
without losing at the same time all content； that is； losing all
reference to an object； and therefore all truth。 But because we are
very easily seduced into employing these pure cognitions and
principles of the understanding by themselves； and that even beyond
the boundaries of experience； which yet is the only source whence we
can obtain matter （objects） on which those pure conceptions may be
employed… understanding runs the risk of making； by means of empty
sophisms； a material and objective use of the mere formal principles
of the pure understanding； and of passing judgements on objects
without distinction… objects which are not given to us； nay； perhaps
cannot be given to us in any way。 Now； as it ought properly to be only
a canon for judging of the empirical use of the understanding； this
kind of logic is misused when we seek to employ it as an organon of
the universal and unlimited exercise of the understanding； and attempt
with the pure understanding alone to judge synthetically； affirm；
and determine respecting objects in general。 In this case the exercise
of the pure understanding bees dialectical。 The second part of
our transcendental logic must therefore be a critique of dialectical
illusion； and this critique we shall term transcendental dialectic…
not meaning it as an art of producing dogmatically such illusion （an
art which is unfortunately too current among the practitioners of
metaphysical juggling）； but as a critique of understanding and
reason in regard to their hyperphysical use。 This critique will expose
the groundless nature of the pretensions of these two faculties； and
invalidate their claims to the discovery and enlargement of our
cognitions merely by means of transcendental principles； and show that
the proper employment of these faculties is to test the judgements
made by the pure understanding； and to guard it from sophistical
delusion。
Transcendental Logic。 FIRST DIVISION。
TRANSCENDENTAL ANALYTIC。
SS I。
Transcendental analytic is the dissection of the whole of our a
priori knowledge into the elements of the pure cognition of the
understanding。 In order to effect our purpose； it is necessary： （1）
That the conceptions be pure and not empirical； （2） That they belong
not to intuition and sensibility； but to thought and understanding；
（3） That they be elementary conceptions； and as such； quite
different from deduced or pound conceptions； （4） That our table
of these elementary conceptions be plete； and fill up the whole
sphere of the pure understanding。 Now this pleteness of a science
cannot be accepted with confidence on the guarantee of a mere estimate
of its existence in an aggregate formed only by means of repeated
experiments and attempts。 The pleteness which we require is
possible only by means of an idea of the totality of the a priori
cognition of the understanding； and through the thereby determined
division of the conceptions which form the said whole； consequently；
only by means of their connection in a system。 Pure understanding
distinguishes itself not merely from everything empirical； but also
pletely from all sensibility。 It is a unity self…subsistent；
self…sufficient； and not to be enlarged by any additions from without。
Hence the sum of its cognition constitutes a system to be determined
by and prised under an idea； and the pleteness and
articulation of this system can at the same time serve as a test of
the correctness and genuineness of all the parts of cognition th