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！
experience。 That the latter use of a conception is the only admissible
one is evident from the reasons following。 For every conception are
requisite； firstly； the logical form of a conception （of thought）
general； and； secondly； the possibility of presenting to this an
object to which it may apply。 Failing this latter； it has no sense；
and utterly void of content； although it may contain the logical
function for constructing a conception from certain data。 Now；
object cannot be given to a conception otherwise than by intuition；
and； even if a pure intuition antecedent to the object is a priori
possible； this pure intuition can itself obtain objective validity
only from empirical intuition； of which it is itself but the form。 All
conceptions； therefore； and with them all principles； however high the
degree of their a priori possibility； relate to empirical
intuitions； that is； to data towards a possible experience。 Without
this they possess no objective validity； but are mere play of
imagination or of understanding with images or notions。 Let us take；
for example； the conceptions of mathematics； and first in its pure
intuitions。 〃Space has three dimensions〃… 〃Between two points there
can be only one straight line；〃 etc。 Although all these principles；
and the representation of the object with which this science
occupies itself； are generated in the mind entirely a priori； they
would nevertheless have no significance if we were not always able
to exhibit their significance in and by means of phenomena
（empirical objects）。 Hence it is requisite that an abstract conception
be made sensuous； that is； that an object corresponding to it in
intuition be forthcoming； otherwise the conception remains； as we say；
without sense； that is； without meaning。 Mathematics fulfils this
requirement by the construction of the figure； which is a phenomenon
evident to the senses。 The same science finds support and significance
in number； this in its turn finds it in the fingers； or in counters；
or in lines and points。 The conception itself is always produced a
priori； together with the synthetical principles or formulas from such
conceptions； but the proper employment of them； and their
application to objects； can exist nowhere but in experience； the
possibility of which； as regards its form； they contain a priori。
That this is also the case with all of the categories and the
principles based upon them is evident from the fact that we cannot
render intelligible the possibility of an object corresponding to them
without having recourse to the conditions of sensibility；
consequently； to the form of phenomena； to which； as their only proper
objects； their use must therefore be confined； inasmuch as； if this
condition is removed； all significance； that is； all relation to an
object； disappears； and no example can be found to make it
comprehensible what sort of things we ought to think under such
conceptions。
The conception of quantity cannot be explained except by saying that
it is the determination of a thing whereby it can be cogitated how
many times one is placed in it。 But this 〃how many times〃 is based
upon successive repetition； consequently upon time and the synthesis
of the homogeneous therein。 Reality； in contradistinction to negation；
can be explained only by cogitating a time which is either filled
therewith or is void。 If I leave out the notion of permanence （which
is existence in all time）； there remains in the conception of
substance nothing but the logical notion of subject； a notion of which
I endeavour to realize by representing to myself something that can
exist only as a subject。 But not only am I perfectly ignorant of any
conditions under which this logical prerogative can belong to a thing；
I can make nothing out of the notion； and draw no inference from it；
because no object to which to apply the conception is determined；
and we consequently do not know whether it has any meaning at all。
In like manner； if I leave out the notion of time； in which
something follows upon some other thing in conformity with a rule； I
can find nothing in the pure category； except that there is a
something of such a sort that from it a conclusion may be drawn as
to the existence of some other thing。 But in this case it would not
only be impossible to distinguish between a cause and an effect；
but； as this power to draw conclusions requires conditions of which
I am quite ignorant； the conception is not determined as to the mode
in which it ought to apply to an object。 The so…called principle：
〃Everything that is contingent has a cause；〃 comes with a gravity
and self…assumed authority that seems to require no support from
without。 But； I ask； what is meant by contingent？ The answer is that
the non…existence of which is possible。 But I should like very well to
know by what means this possibility of non…existence is to be
cognized； if we do not represent to ourselves a succession in the
series of phenomena； and in this succession an existence which follows
a non…existence； or conversely； consequently； change。 For to say； that
the non…existence of a thing is not self…contradictory is a lame
appeal to a logical condition； which is no doubt a necessary condition
of the existence of the conception； but is far from being sufficient
for the real objective possibility of non…existence。 I can
annihilate in thought every existing substance without
self…contradiction； but I cannot infer from this their objective
contingency in existence； that is to say； the possibility of their
non…existence in itself。 As regards the category of community； it
may easily be inferred that； as the pure categories of substance and
causality are incapable of a definition and explanation sufficient
to determine their object without the aid of intuition； the category
of reciprocal causality in the relation of substances to each other
（commercium） is just as little susceptible thereof。 Possibility；
existence； and necessity nobody has ever yet been able to explain
without being guilty of manifest tautology； when the definition has
been drawn entirely from the pure understanding。 For the
substitution of the logical possibility of the conception… the
condition of which is that it be not self…contradictory； for the
transcendental possibility of things… the condition of which is that
there be an object corresponding to the conception； is a trick which
can only deceive the inexperienced。*
*In one word； to none of these conceptions belongs a corresponding
object； and consequently their real possibility cannot be
demonstrated； if we take away sensuous intuition… the only intuition
which we possess… and there then remains nothing but the logical
possibility； that is； the fact that the conception or thought is
possible… which； however； is not the question； what we want to know
being； whether it relates to an object and thus possesses any meaning。
It follows incontestably； that th