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！
scholastically correct a manner as others； it can busy itself with
reasoning and arguments without end； wandering among mere ideas； about
which one can always be very eloquent； because we know nothing about
them； while； in the observation and investigation of nature； it
would be forced to remain dumb and to confess its utter ignorance。
Thus indolence and vanity form of themselves strong remendations of
these principles。 Besides； although it is a hard thing for a
philosopher to assume a principle； of which he can give to himself
no reasonable account； and still more to employ conceptions； the
objective reality of which cannot be established； nothing is more
usual with the mon understanding。 It wants something which will
allow it to go to work with confidence。 The difficulty of even
prehending a supposition does not disquiet it； because… not knowing
what prehending means… it never even thinks of the supposition it
may be adopting as a principle； and regards as known that with which
it has bee familiar from constant use。 And； at last； all
speculative interests disappear before the practical interests which
it holds dear； and it fancies that it understands and knows what its
necessities and hopes incite it to assume or to believe。 Thus the
empiricism of transcendentally idealizing reason is robbed of all
popularity； and； however prejudicial it may be to the highest
practical principles； there is no fear that it will ever pass the
limits of the schools； or acquire any favour or influence in society
or with the multitude a
Human reason is by nature architectonic。 That is to say； it
regards all cognitions as parts of a possible system； and hence
accepts only such principles as at least do not incapacitate a
cognition to which we may have attained from being placed along with
others in a general system。 But the propositions of the antithesis are
of a character which renders the pletion of an edifice of
cognitions impossible。 According to these； beyond one state or epoch
of the world there is always to be found one more ancient； in every
part always other parts themselves divisible； preceding every event
another； the origin of which must itself be sought still higher； and
everything in existence is conditioned； and still not dependent on
an unconditioned and primal existence。 As； therefore； the antithesis
will not concede the existence of a first beginning which might be
available as a foundation； a plete edifice of cognition； in the
presence of such hypothesis； is utterly impossible。 Thus the
architectonic interest of reason； which requires a unity… not
empirical； but a priori and rational… forms a natural remendation
for the assertions of the thesis in our antinomy。
But if any one could free himself entirely from all considerations
of interest； and weigh without partiality the assertions of reason；
attending only to their content； irrespective of the consequences
which follow from them； such a person； on the supposition that he knew
no other way out of the confusion than to settle the truth of one or
other of the conflicting doctrines； would live in a state of continual
hesitation。 Today； he would feel convinced that the human will is
free； to…morrow； considering the indissoluble chain of nature； he
would look on freedom as a mere illusion and declare nature to be
all…in…all。 But； if he were called to action； the play of the merely
speculative reason would disappear like the shapes of a dream； and
practical interest would dictate his choice of principles。 But； as
it well befits a reflective and inquiring being to devote certain
periods of time to the examination of its own reason… to divest itself
of all partiality； and frankly to municate its observations for the
judgement and opinion of others； so no one can be blamed for； much
less prevented from； placing both parties on their trial； with
permission to end themselves； free from intimidation； before
intimidation； before a sworn jury of equal condition with
themselves… the condition of weak and fallible men。
SECTION IV。 Of the necessity imposed upon Pure Reason
of presenting a Solution of its Transcendental
Problems。
To avow an ability to solve all problems and to answer all questions
would be a profession certain to convict any philosopher of
extravagant boasting and self…conceit； and at once to destroy the
confidence that might otherwise have been reposed in him。 There are；
however； sciences so constituted that every question arising within
their sphere must necessarily be capable of receiving an answer from
the knowledge already possessed； for the answer must be received
from the same sources whence the question arose。 In such sciences it
is not allowable to excuse ourselves on the plea of necessary and
unavoidable ignorance； a solution is absolutely requisite。 The rule of
right and wrong must help us to the knowledge of what is right or
wrong in all possible cases； otherwise； the idea of obligation or duty
would be utterly null； for we cannot have any obligation to that which
we cannot know。 On the other hand； in our investigations of the
phenomena of nature； much must remain uncertain； and many questions
continue insoluble； because what we know of nature is far from being
sufficient to explain all the phenomena that are presented to our
observation。 Now the question is： 〃Whether there is in
transcendental philosophy any question； relating to an object
presented to pure reason； which is unanswerable by this reason； and
whether we must regard the subject of the question as quite uncertain；
so far as our knowledge extends； and must give it a place among
those subjects； of which we have just so much conception as is
sufficient to enable us to raise a question… faculty or materials
failing us； however； when we attempt an answer。 the world
Now I maintain that； among all speculative cognition； the
peculiarity of transcendental philosophy is that there is no question；
relating to an object presented to pure reason； which is insoluble
by this reason； and that the profession of unavoidable ignorance…
the problem being alleged to be beyond the reach of our faculties…
cannot free us from the obligation to present a plete and
satisfactory answer。 For the very conception which enables us to raise
the question must give us the power of answering it； inasmuch as the
object； as in the case of right and wrong； is not to be discovered out
of the conception。
But； in transcendental philosophy； it is only the cosmological
questions to which we can demand a satisfactory answer in relation
to the constitution of their object； and the philosopher is not
permitted to avail himself of the pretext of necessary ignorance and
impenetrable obscurity。 These questions relate solely to the
cosmological ideas。 For the object must be given in experience； and
the question relates to the adequateness of the object to an idea。
If the object is transcendental and therefore itself unknown； if the
question； for example； is whether the object… the something； the
phenomenon of which （internal… in ourselves） is thought… that is to
say； the soul； is in itself