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！
thing of which we can neither for they are not things in themselves；
but only phenomena。 What we cognize in matter is nothing but relations
（what we call its internal determinations are but paratively
internal）。 But there are some self…subsistent and permanent； through
which a determined object is given。 That I； when abstraction is made
of these relations； have nothing more to think； does not destroy the
conception of a thing as phenomenon； nor the conception of an object
in abstracto； but it does away with the possibility of an object
that is determinable according to mere conceptions； that is； of a
noumenon。 It is certainly startling to hear that a thing consists
solely of relations； but this thing is simply a phenomenon； and cannot
be cogitated by means of the mere categories： it does itself consist
in the mere relation of something in general to the senses。 In the
same way； we cannot cogitate relations of things in abstracto； if we
mence with conceptions alone； in any other manner than that one
is the cause of determinations in the other； for that is itself the
conception of the understanding or category of relation。 But； as in
this case we make abstraction of all intuition； we lose altogether the
mode in which the manifold determines to each of its parts its
place； that is； the form of sensibility （space）； and yet this mode
antecedes all empirical causality。
*If any one wishes here to have recourse to the usual subterfuge；
and to say； that at least realitates noumena cannot be in opposition
to each other； it will be requisite for him to adduce an example of
this pure and non…sensuous reality； that it may be understood
whether the notion represents something or nothing。 But an example
cannot be found except in experience； which never presents to us
anything more than phenomena； and thus the proposition means nothing
more than that the conception which contains only affirmatives does
not contain anything negative… a proposition nobody ever doubted。
If by intelligible objects we understand things which can be thought
by means of the pure categories； without the need of the schemata of
sensibility； such objects are impossible。 For the condition of the
objective use of all our conceptions of understanding is the mode of
our sensuous intuition； whereby objects are given； and； if we make
abstraction of the latter； the former can have no relation to an
object。 And even if we should suppose a different kind of intuition
from our own； still our functions of thought would have no use or
signification in respect thereof。 But if we understand by the term；
objects of a non…sensuous intuition； in respect of which our
categories are not valid； and of which we can accordingly have no
knowledge （neither intuition nor conception）； in this merely
negative sense noumena must be admitted。 For this is no more than
saying that our mode of intuition is not applicable to all things； but
only to objects of our senses； that consequently its objective
validity is limited； and that room is therefore left for another
kind of intuition； and thus also for things that may be objects of it。
But in this sense the conception of a noumenon is problematical；
that is to say； it is the notion of that it that it is possible； nor
that it is impossible； inasmuch as we do not know of any mode of
intuition besides the sensuous； or of any other sort of conceptions
than the categories… a mode of intuition and a kind of conception
neither of which is applicable to a non…sensuous object。 We are on
this account inpetent to extend the sphere of our objects of
thought beyond the conditions of our sensibility； and to assume the
existence of objects of pure thought； that is； of noumena； inasmuch as
these have no true positive signification。 For it must be confessed of
the categories that they are not of themselves sufficient for the
cognition of things in themselves and； without the data of
sensibility； are mere subjective forms of the unity of the
understanding。 Thought is certainly not a product of the senses； and
in so far is not limited by them； but it does not therefore follow
that it may be employed purely and without the intervention of
sensibility； for it would then be without reference to an object。
And we cannot call a noumenon an object of pure thought； for the
representation thereof is but the problematical conception of an
object for a perfectly different intuition and a perfectly different
understanding from ours； both of which are consequently themselves
problematical。 The conception of a noumenon is therefore not the
conception of an object； but merely a problematical conception
inseparably connected with the limitation of our sensibility。 That
is to say； this conception contains the answer to the question： 〃Are
there objects quite unconnected with； and independent of； our
intuition？〃… a question to which only an indeterminate answer can be
given。 That answer is： 〃Inasmuch as sensuous intuition does not
apply to all things without distinction； there remains room for
other and different objects。〃 The existence of these problematical
objects is therefore not absolutely denied； in the absence of a
determinate conception of them； but； as no category is valid in
respect of them； neither must they be admitted as objects for our
understanding。
Understanding accordingly limits sensibility； without at the same
time enlarging its own field。 While； moreover； it forbids
sensibility to apply its forms and modes to things in themselves and
restricts it to the sphere of phenomena； it cogitates an object in
itself； only； however； as a transcendental object； which is the
cause of a phenomenon （consequently not itself a phenomenon）； and
which cannot be thought either as a quantity or as reality； or as
substance （because these conceptions always require sensuous forms
in which to determine an object）… an object； therefore； of which we
are quite unable to say whether it can be met with in ourselves or out
of us； whether it would be annihilated together with sensibility；
or； if this were taken away； would continue to exist。 If we wish to
call this object a noumenon； because the representation of it is
non…sensuous； we are at liberty to do so。 But as we can apply to it
none of the conceptions of our understanding； the representation is
for us quite void； and is available only for the indication of the
limits of our sensuous intuition； thereby leaving at the same time
an empty space； which we are petent to fill by the aid neither of
possible experience； nor of the pure understanding。
The critique of the pure understanding； accordingly； does not permit
us to create for ourselves a new field of objects beyond those which
are presented to us as phenomena； and to stray into intelligible
worlds； nay； it does not even allow us to endeavour to form so much as
a conception of them。 The specious error which leads to this… and
which is a perfectly excusable one… lies in the fact that the
employment of the understanding； contrary to its proper purpose and
destination； is made transcendental； and objects； that is； possible
intuitions； are made to regulate themselves according to