《the+critique+of+practical+reason》

下载本书

添加书签

the+critique+of+practical+reason- 第15节


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!
could this acute writer allow an empirical origin of this concept;
since this is directly contradictory to the necessity of connection
which constitutes the essence of the notion of causality; hence the
notion was proscribed; and in its place was put custom in the
observation of the course of perceptions。
  It resulted; however; from my inquiries; that the objects with which
we have to do in experience are by no means things in themselves;
but merely phenomena; and that although in the case of things in
themselves it is impossible to see how; if A is supposed; it should be
contradictory that B; which is quite different from A; should not also
be supposed (i。e。; to see the necessity of the connection between A as
cause and B as effect); yet it can very well be conceived that; as
phenomena; they may be necessarily connected in one experience in a
certain way (e。g。; with regard to time…relations); so that they
could not be separated without contradicting that connection; by means
of which this experience is possible in which they are objects and
in which alone they are cognisable by us。 And so it was found to be in
fact; so that I was able not only to prove the objective reality of
the concept of cause in regard to objects of experience; but also to
deduce it as an a priori concept by reason of the necessity of the
connection it implied; that is; to show the possibility of its
origin from pure understanding without any empirical sources; and
thus; after removing the source of empiricism; I was able also to
overthrow the inevitable consequence of this; namely; scepticism;
first with regard to physical science; and then with regard to
mathematics (in which empiricism has just the same grounds); both
being sciences which have reference to objects of possible experience;
herewith overthrowing the thorough doubt of whatever theoretic
reason professes to discern。
  But how is it with the application of this category of causality
(and all the others; for without them there can be no knowledge of
anything existing) to things which are not objects of possible
experience; but lie beyond its bounds? For I was able to deduce the
objective reality of these concepts only with regard to objects of
possible experience。 But even this very fact; that I have saved
them; only in case I have proved that objects may by means of them
be thought; though not determined a priori; this it is that gives them
a place in the pure understanding; by which they are referred to
objects in general (sensible or not sensible)。 If anything is still
wanting; it is that which is the condition of the application of these
categories; and especially that of causality; to objects; namely;
intuition; for where this is not given; the application with a view to
theoretic knowledge of the object; as a noumenon; is impossible and;
therefore; if anyone ventures on it; is (as in the Critique of Pure
Reason) absolutely forbidden。 Still; the objective reality of the
concept (of causality) remains; and it can be used even of noumena;
but without our being able in the least to define the concept
theoretically so as to produce knowledge。 For that this concept;
even in reference to an object; contains nothing impossible; was shown
by this; that; even while applied to objects of sense; its seat was
certainly fixed in the pure understanding; and although; when referred
to things in themselves (which cannot be objects of experience); it is
not capable of being determined so as to represent a definite object
for the purpose of theoretic knowledge; yet for any other purpose (for
instance; a practical) it might be capable of being determined so as
to have such application。 This could not be the case if; as Hume
maintained; this concept of causality contained something absolutely
impossible to be thought。
  In order now to discover this condition of the application of the
said concept to noumena; we need only recall why we are not content
with its application to objects of experience; but desire also to
apply it to things in themselves。 It will appear; then; that it is not
a theoretic but a practical purpose that makes this a necessity。 In
speculation; even if we were successful in it; we should not really
gain anything in the knowledge of nature; or generally with regard
to such objects as are given; but we should make a wide step from
the sensibly conditioned (in which we have already enough to do to
maintain ourselves; and to follow carefully the chain of causes) to
the supersensible; in order to plete our knowledge of principles
and to fix its limits; whereas there always remains an infinite
chasm unfilled between those limits and what we know; and we should
have hearkened to a vain curiosity rather than a solid…desire of
knowledge。
  But; besides the relation in which the understanding stands to
objects (in theoretical knowledge); it has also a relation to the
faculty of desire; which is therefore called the will; and the pure
will; inasmuch as pure understanding (in this case called reason) is
practical through the mere conception of a law。 The objective
reality of a pure will; or; what is the same thing; of a pure
practical reason; is given in the moral law a priori; as it were; by a
fact; for so we may name a determination of the will which is
inevitable; although it does not rest on empirical principles。 Now; in
the notion of a will the notion of causality is already contained; and
hence the notion of a pure will contains that of a causality
acpanied with freedom; that is; one which is not determinable by
physical laws; and consequently is not capable of any empirical
intuition in proof of its reality; but; nevertheless; pletely
justifies its objective reality a priori in the pure practical law;
not; indeed (as is easily seen) for the purposes of the theoretical;
but of the practical use of reason。 Now the notion of a being that has
free will is the notion of a causa noumenon; and that this notion
involves no contradiction; we are already assured by the fact… that
inasmuch as the concept of cause has arisen wholly from pure
understanding; and has its objective reality assured by the deduction;
as it is moreover in its origin independent of any sensible
conditions; it is; therefore; not restricted to phenomena (unless we
wanted to make a definite theoretic use of it); but can be applied
equally to things that are objects of the pure understanding。 But;
since this application cannot rest on any intuition (for intuition can
only be sensible); therefore; causa noumenon; as regards the theoretic
use of reason; although a possible and thinkable; is yet an empty
notion。 Now; I do not desire by means of this to understand
theoretically the nature of a being; in so far as it has a pure
will; it is enough for me to have thereby designated it as such; and
hence to bine the notion of causality with that of freedom (and
what is inseparable from it; the moral law; as its determining
principle)。 Now; this right I certainly have by virtue of the pure;
not…empirical origin of the notion of cause; since I do not consider
myself entitled to make any use of it except in reference to the moral
law which determines its reality; that is; only a practical use。
  If; with Hume; I had denied to the notion of causality all objective
reality in its 'theoretic' use; not merely with regard to things in
themselves (the supersensible); but also with regard to the objects of
the senses; it would have lost all significance; and being a
theoretically impossible notion would have been declared to be quite
useless; and since what is nothing cannot be made any use of; the
practical use of a concept theoretically null would have been
absurd。 But; as it is; the concept of a causality free from
empirical conditions; although empty; i。e。; without any appropriate
intuition); is yet theoretically possible; and refers to an
indeterminate object; but in pensation significance is given to
it in the moral law and consequently in a practical sense。 I have;
indeed; no intuition which should determine its objective theoretic
reality; but not the less it has a real application; which is
exhibited in concreto in intention
小提示:按 回车 [Enter] 键 返回书目,按 ← 键 返回上一页, 按 → 键 进入下一页。 赞一下 添加书签加入书架