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！
merely as the productions of experience。
Transition to the Transcendental Deduction of the
Categories。 SS 10
There are only two possible ways in which synthetical representation
and its objects can coincide with and relate necessarily to each
other； and； as it were； meet together。 Either the object alone makes
the representation possible； or the representation alone makes the
object possible。 In the former case； the relation between them is only
empirical； and an a priori representation is impossible。 And this is
the case with phenomena； as regards that in them which is referable to
mere sensation。 In the latter case… although representation alone （for
of its causality； by means of the will； we do not here speak） does not
produce the object as to its existence； it must nevertheless be a
priori determinative in regard to the object； if it is only by means
of the representation that we can cognize anything as an object。 Now
there are only two conditions of the possibility of a cognition of
objects； firstly； intuition； by means of which the object； though only
as phenomenon； is given； secondly； conception； by means of which the
object which corresponds to this intuition is thought。 But it is
evident from what has been said on aesthetic that the first condition；
under which alone objects can be intuited； must in fact exist； as a
formal basis for them； a priori in the mind。 With this formal
condition of sensibility； therefore； all phenomena necessarily
correspond； because it is only through it that they can be phenomena
at all； that is； can be empirically intuited and given。 Now the
question is whether there do not exist； a priori in the mind；
conceptions of understanding also； as conditions under which alone
something； if not intuited； is yet thought as object。 If this question
be answered in the affirmative； it follows that all empirical
cognition of objects is necessarily conformable to such conceptions；
since； if they are not presupposed； it is impossible that anything can
be an object of experience。 Now all experience contains； besides the
intuition of the senses through which an object is given； a conception
also of an object that is given in intuition。 Accordingly； conceptions
of objects in general must lie as a priori conditions at the
foundation of all empirical cognition； and consequently； the objective
validity of the categories； as a priori conceptions； will rest upon
this； that experience （as far as regards the form of thought） is
possible only by their means。 For in that case they apply
necessarily and a priori to objects of experience； because only
through them can an object of experience be thought。
The whole aim of the transcendental deduction of all a priori
conceptions is to show that these conceptions are a priori
conditions of the possibility of all experience。 Conceptions which
afford us the objective foundation of the possibility of experience
are for that very reason necessary。 But the analysis of the
experiences in which they are met with is not deduction； but only an
illustration of them； because from experience they could never
derive the attribute of necessity。 Without their original
applicability and relation to all possible experience； in which all
objects of cognition present themselves； the relation of the
categories to objects； of whatever nature； would be quite
inprehensible。
The celebrated Locke； for want of due reflection on these points；
and because he met with pure conceptions of the understanding in
experience； sought also to deduce them from experience； and yet
proceeded so inconsequently as to attempt； with their aid； to arrive
it cognitions which lie far beyond the limits of all experience。 David
Hume perceived that； to render this possible； it was necessary that
the conceptions should have an a priori origin。 But as he could not
explain how it was possible that conceptions which are not connected
with each other in the understanding must nevertheless be thought as
necessarily connected in the object… and it never occurred to him that
the understanding itself might； perhaps； by means of these
conceptions； be the author of the experience in which its objects were
presented to it… he was forced to drive these conceptions from
experience； that is； from a subjective necessity arising from repeated
association of experiences erroneously considered to be objective…
in one word； from habit。 But he proceeded with perfect consequence and
declared it to be impossible； with such conceptions and the principles
arising from them； to overstep the limits of experience。 The empirical
derivation； however； which both of these philosophers attributed to
these conceptions； cannot possibly be reconciled with the fact that we
do possess scientific a priori cognitions； namely； those of pure
mathematics and general physics。
The former of these two celebrated men opened a wide door to
extravagance… （for if reason has once undoubted right on its side；
it will not allow itself to be confined to set limits； by vague
remendations of moderation）； the latter gave himself up entirely to
scepticism… a natural consequence； after having discovered； as he
thought； that the faculty of cognition was not trustworthy。 We now
intend to make a trial whether it be not possible safely to conduct
reason between these two rocks； to assign her determinate limits；
and yet leave open for her the entire sphere of her legitimate
activity。
I shall merely premise an explanation of what the categories are。
They are conceptions of an object in general； by means of which its
intuition is contemplated as determined in relation to one of the
logical functions of judgement。 The following will make this plain。
The function of the categorical judgement is that of the relation of
subject to predicate； for example； in the proposition： 〃All bodies are
divisible。〃 But in regard to the merely logical use of the
understanding； it still remains undetermined to which Of these two
conceptions belongs the function Of subject and to which that of
predicate。 For we could also say： 〃Some divisible is a body。〃 But
the category of su