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！
Every event has a cause。 For this reason； it is not a dogma；
although from another point of view； that of experience； it is capable
of being proved to demonstration。 The proper term for such a
proposition is principle； and not theorem （although it does require to
be proved）； because it possesses the remarkable peculiarity of being
the condition of the possibility of its own ground of proof； that
is； experience； and of forming a necessary presupposition in all
empirical observation。
If then； in the speculative sphere of pure reason； no dogmata are to
be found； all dogmatical methods； whether borrowed from mathematics；
or invented by philosophical thinkers； are alike inappropriate and
inefficient。 They only serve to conceal errors and fallacies； and to
deceive philosophy； whose duty it is to see that reason pursues a safe
and straight path。 A philosophical method may； however； be
systematical。 For our reason is； subjectively considered； itself a
system； and； in the sphere of mere conceptions； a system of
investigation according to principles of unity； the material being
supplied by experience alone。 But this is not the proper place for
discussing the peculiar method of transcendental philosophy； as our
present task is simply to examine whether our faculties are capable of
erecting an edifice on the basis of pure reason； and how far they
may proceed with the materials at their mand。
SECTION II。 The Discipline of Pure Reason in Polemics。
Reason must be subject； in all its operations； to criticism； which
must always be permitted to exercise its functions without
restraint； otherwise its interests are imperilled and its influence
obnoxious to suspicion。 There is nothing； however useful； however
sacred it may be； that can claim exemption from the searching
examination of this supreme tribunal； which has no respect of persons。
The very existence of reason depends upon this freedom； for the
voice of reason is not that of a dictatorial and despotic power； it is
rather like the vote of the citizens of a free state； every member
of which must have the privilege of giving free expression to his
doubts； and possess even the right of veto。
But while reason can never decline to submit itself to the
tribunal of criticism； it has not always cause to dread the
judgement of this court。 Pure reason； however； when engaged in the
sphere of dogmatism； is not so thoroughly conscious of a strict
observance of its highest laws； as to appear before a higher
judicial reason with perfect confidence。 On the contrary； it must
renounce its magnificent dogmatical pretensions in philosophy。
Very different is the case when it has to defend itself； not
before a judge； but against an equal。 If dogmatical assertions are
advanced on the negative side； in opposition to those made by reason
on the positive side； its justification kat authrhopon is plete；
although the proof of its propositions is kat aletheian
unsatisfactory。
By the polemic of pure reason I mean the defence of its propositions
made by reason； in opposition to the dogmatical counter…propositions
advanced by other parties。 The question here is not whether its own
statements may not also be false； it merely regards the fact that
reason proves that the opposite cannot be established with
demonstrative certainty； nor even asserted with a higher degree of
probability。 Reason does not hold her possessions upon sufferance；
for； although she cannot show a perfectly satisfactory title to
them； no one can prove that she is not the rightful possessor。
It is a melancholy reflection that reason； in its highest
exercise； falls into an antithetic； and that the supreme tribunal
for the settlement of differences should not be at union with
itself。 It is true that we had to discuss the question of an
apparent antithetic； but we found that it was based upon a
misconception。 In conformity with the mon prejudice； phenomena were
regarded as things in themselves； and thus an absolute pleteness in
their synthesis was required in the one mode or in the other （it was
shown to be impossible in both）； a demand entirely out of place in
regard to phenomena。 There was； then； no real self…contradiction of
reason in the propositions： The series of phenomena given in
themselves has an absolutely first beginning； and： This series is
absolutely and in itself without beginning。 The two propositions are
perfectly consistent with each other； because phenomena as phenomena
are in themselves nothing； and consequently the hypothesis that they
are things in themselves must lead to self…contradictory inferences。
But there are cases in which a similar misunderstanding cannot be
provided against； and the dispute must remain unsettled。 Take； for
example； the theistic proposition： There is a Supreme Being； and on
the other hand； the atheistic counter…statement： There exists no
Supreme Being； or； in psychology： Everything that thinks possesses the
attribute of absolute and permanent unity； which is utterly
different from the transitory unity of material phenomena； and the
counter…proposition： The soul is not an immaterial unity； and its
nature is transitory； like that of phenomena。 The objects of these
questions contain no heterogeneous or contradictory elements； for they
relate to things in themselves； and not to phenomena。 There would
arise； indeed； a real contradiction； if reason came forward with a
statement on the negative side of these questions alone。 As regards
the criticism to which the grounds of proof on the affirmative side
must be subjected； it may be freely admitted； without necessitating
the surrender of the affirmative propositions； which have； at least；
the interest of reason in their favour… an advantage which the
opposite party cannot lay claim to。
I cannot agree with the opinion of several admirable thinkers…
Sulzer among the rest… that； in spite of the weakness of the arguments
hitherto in use； we may hope； one day； to see sufficient
demonstrations of the two cardinal propositions of pure reason… the
existence of a Supreme Being； and the immortality of the soul。 I am
certain； on the contrary； that this will never be the case。 For on
what ground can reason base such synthetical propositions； which do
not relate to the objects of experience and their internal
possibility？ But it is also demonstratively certain that no one will
ever be able to maintain the contrary with the least show of
probability。 For； as he can attempt such a proof solely upon the basis
of pure reason； he is bound to prove that a Supreme Being； and a
thinking subject in the character of a pure intelligence； are
impossible。 But where will he find the knowledge which can enable
him to enounce synthetical judgements in regard to things which
transcend the region of experience？ We may； therefore； rest assured
that the opposite never will be demonstrated。 We need not； then；
have recourse to scholastic arguments； we may always admit the truth
of those propositions which are consistent with the speculative
interests of reason in the sphere of experience； and form； moreover；
the only means of uniting the speculative with the practical interes