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！
other hand； because all representations； whether they have or have not
external things for their objects； still in themselves； as
determinations of the mind； belong to our internal state； and
because this internal state is subject to the formal condition of
the internal intuition； that is； to time… time is a condition a priori
of all phenomena whatsoever… the immediate condition of all
internal； and thereby the mediate condition of all external phenomena。
If I can say a priori； 〃All outward phenomena are in space； and
determined a priori according to the relations of space；〃 I can
also； from the principle of the internal sense； affirm universally；
〃All phenomena in general； that is； all objects of the senses； are
in time and stand necessarily in relations of time。〃
If we abstract our internal intuition of ourselves and all
external intuitions； possible only by virtue of this internal
intuition and presented to us by our faculty of representation； and
consequently take objects as they are in themselves； then time is
nothing。 It is only of objective validity in regard to phenomena；
because these are things which we regard as objects of our senses。
It no longer objective we； make abstraction of the sensuousness of our
intuition； in other words； of that mode of representation which is
peculiar to us； and speak of things in general。 Time is therefore
merely a subjective condition of our （human） intuition （which is
always sensuous； that is； so far as we are affected by objects）； and
in itself； independently of the mind or subject； is nothing。
Nevertheless； in respect of all phenomena； consequently of all
things which come within the sphere of our experience； it is
necessarily objective。 We cannot say； 〃All things are in time；〃
because in this conception of things in general； we abstract and
make no mention of any sort of intuition of things。 But this is the
proper condition under which time belongs to our representation of
objects。 If we add the condition to the conception； and say； 〃All
things； as phenomena； that is； objects of sensuous intuition； are in
time；〃 then the proposition has its sound objective validity and
universality a priori。
What we have now set forth teaches； therefore； the empirical reality
of time； that is； its objective validity in reference to all objects
which can ever be presented to our senses。 And as our intuition is
always sensuous； no object ever can be presented to us in
experience； which does not come under the conditions of time。 On the
other hand； we deny to time all claim to absolute reality； that is； we
deny that it； without having regard to the form of our sensuous
intuition； absolutely inheres in things as a condition or property。
Such properties as belong to objects as things in themselves never can
be presented to us through the medium of the senses。 Herein
consists； therefore； the transcendental ideality of time； according to
which； if we abstract the subjective conditions of sensuous intuition；
it is nothing； and cannot be reckoned as subsisting or inhering in
objects as things in themselves； independently of its relation to
our intuition。 this ideality； like that of space； is not to be
proved or illustrated by fallacious analogies with sensations； for
this reason… that in such arguments or illustrations； we make the
presupposition that the phenomenon； in which such and such
predicates inhere； has objective reality； while in this case we can
only find such an objective reality as is itself empirical； that is；
regards the object as a mere phenomenon。 In reference to this subject；
see the remark in Section I （SS 4）
SS 8 Elucidation。
Against this theory； which grants empirical reality to time； but
denies to it absolute and transcendental reality； I have heard from
intelligent men an objection so unanimously urged that I conclude that
it must naturally present itself to every reader to whom these
considerations are novel。 It runs thus： 〃Changes are real〃 （this the
continual change in our own representations demonstrates； even
though the existence of all external phenomena； together with their
changes； is denied）。 Now； changes are only possible in time； and
therefore time must be something real。 But there is no difficulty in
answering this。 I grant the whole argument。 Time； no doubt； is
something real； that is； it is the real form of our internal
intuition。 It therefore has subjective reality； in reference to our
internal experience； that is； I have really the representation of time
and of my determinations therein。 Time； therefore； is not to be
regarded as an object； but as the mode of representation of myself
as an object。 But if I could intuite myself； or be intuited by another
being； without this condition of sensibility； then those very
determinations which we now represent to ourselves as changes； would
present to us a knowledge in which the representation of time； and
consequently of change； would not appear。 The empirical reality of
time； therefore； remains； as the condition of all our experience。
But absolute reality； according to what has been said above； cannot be
granted it。 Time is nothing but the form of our internal intuition。*
If we take away from it the special condition of our sensibility；
the conception of time also vanishes； and it inheres not in the
objects themselves； but solely in the subject （or mind） which intuites
them。
*I can indeed say 〃my representations follow one another； or are
successive〃； but this means only that we are conscious of them as in a
succession； that is； according to the form of the internal sense。
Time； therefore； is not a thing in itself； nor is it any objective
determination pertaining to； or inherent in things。
But the reason why this objection is so unanimously brought
against our doctrine of time； and that too by disputants who cannot
start any intelligible arguments against the doctrine of the
ideality of space； is this… they have no hope of demonstrating
apodeictically the absolute reality of space； because the doctrine
of idealism is against them； according to which the reality of
external objects is not capable of any strict proof。 On the other
hand； the reality of the object of our internal sense （that is； myself
and my internal state） is clear immediately through consciousness。 The
former… external objects in space… might be a mere delusion； but the
latter… the object of my internal perception… is undeniably real。 They
do not； however； reflect that both； without question of their
reality as representations； belong only to the genus phenomenon； which
has always two aspects； the one； the object considered as a thing in
itself； without regard to the mode of intuiting it； and the nature
of which remains for this very reason problematical； the other； the
form of our intuition of the object； which must be sought not in the
object as a thing in itself； but in the subject to which it appears…