§21aIn order to comprise the whole matter in one idea, it is first necessary to remind the reader that we are discussing not the origin of experience, but of that which lies in experience. The former pertains to empirical psychology, and would even then never be adequately explained without the latter, which belongs to the Critique of cognition, and particularly of the understanding.
Experience consists of intuitions, which belong to the sensibility, and of judgments, which are entirely a work of the understanding. But the judgments, which the understanding forms alone from sensuous intuitions, are far from being judgments of experience. For in the one case the judgment connects only the perceptions as they are given in the sensuous intuition, while in the other the judgments must express what experience in general, and not what the mere perception (which possesses only subjective validity) contains. The judgment of experience must therefore add to the sensuous intuition and its logical connexion in a judgment (after it has been rendered universal by comparison) something that determines the synthetical judgment as necessary and therefore as universally valid. This can be nothing else than that concept which represents the intuition as determined in itself with regard to one form of judgment rather than another, viz., a concept of that synthetical unity of intuitions which can only be represented by a given logical function of judgments.
§22The sum of the matter is this: the business of the senses is to intuite—that of the understanding is to think. But thinking is uniting representations in one consciousness. This union originates either merely relative to the subject, and is accidental and subjective, or is absolute, and is necessary or objective. The union of representations in one consciousness is judgment. Thinking therefore is the same as judging, or referring representations to judgments in general. Hence judgments are either merely subjective, when representations are referred to a consciousness in one subject only, and united in it, or objective, when they are united in a consciousness generally, that is, necessarily. The logical functions of all judgments are but various modes of uniting representations in consciousness. But if they serve for concepts, they are concepts of their necessary union in a consciousness, and so principles of objectively valid judgments. This union in a consciousness is either analytical, by identity, or synthetical, by the combination and addition of various representations one to another. Experience consists in the synthetical connexion of phenomena (perceptions) in consciousness, so far as this connexion is necessary. Hence the pure concepts of the understanding are those under which all perceptions must be subsumed ere they can serve for judgments of experience, in which the synthetical unity of the perceptions is represented as necessary and universally valid.{15}
=================================== {15} But how does this proposition, "that judgments of experience contain necessity in the synthesis of perceptions," agree with my statement so often before inculcated, that "experience as cognition a posteriori can afford contingent judgments only?" When I say that experience teaches me something, I mean only the perception that lies in experience,—for example, that heat always follows the shining of the sun on a stone; consequently the proposition of experience is always so far accidental. That this heat necessarily follows the shining of the sun is contained indeed in the judgment of experience (by means of the concept of cause), yet is a fact not learned by experience; for conversely, experience is first of all generated by this addition of the concept of the understanding (of cause) to perception. How perception attains this addition may be seen by referring in the Critique itself to the section on the Transcendental faculty of Judgment [viz., in the first edition, Von dem Schematismus der reinen Verstandsbegriffe]. ===================================
§23Judgments, when considered merely as the condition of the union of given representations in a consciousness, are rules. These rules, so far as they represent the union as necessary, are rules a priori, and so far as they cannot be deduced from higher rules, are fundamental principles. But in regard to the possibility of all experience, merely in relation to the form of thinking in it, no conditions of judgments of experience are higher than those which bring the phenomena, according to the various form of their intuition, under pure concepts of the understanding, and render the empirical judgment objectively valid. These concepts are therefore the a priori principles of possible experience.
The principles of possible experience are then at the same time universal laws of nature, which can be cognised a priori. And thus the problem in our second question, "How is the pure Science of Nature possible?" is solved. For the system which is required for the form of a science is to be met with in perfection here, because, beyond the above-mentioned formal conditions of all judgments in general offered in logic, no others are possible, and these constitute a logical system. The concepts grounded thereupon, which contain the a priori conditions of all synthetical and necessary judgments, accordingly constitute a transcendental system. Finally the principles, by means of which all phenomena are subsumed under these concepts, constitute a physical{16} system, that is, a system of nature, which precedes all empirical cognition of nature, makes it even possible, and hence may in strictness be denominated the universal and pure science of nature.
=================================== {16} [Kant uses the term physiological in its etymological meaning as "pertaining to the science of physics," i.e., nature in general, not as we use the term now as "pertaining to the functions of the living body." Accordingly it has been translated "physical."—Ed.] ===================================
§24The first one{17} of the physiological principles subsumes all phenomena, as intuitions in space and time, under the concept of Quantity, and is so far a principle of the application of Mathematics to experience. The second one subsumes the empirical element, viz., sensation which denotes the real in intuitions, not indeed directly under the concept of quantity, because sensation is not an intuition that contains either space or time, though it places the respective object into both. But still there is between reality (sense-representation) and the zero, or total void of intuition in time, a difference which has a quantity. For between every given degree of light and of darkness, between every degree of heat and of absolute cold, between every degree of weight and of absolute lightness, between every degree of occupied space and of totally void space, diminishing degrees can be conceived, in the same manner as between consciousness and total unconsciousness (the darkness of a psychological blank) ever diminishing degrees obtain. Hence there is no perception that can prove an absolute absence of it; for instance, no psychological darkness that cannot be considered as a kind of consciousness. This occurs in all cases of sensation, and so the understanding can anticipate even sensations, which constitute the peculiar quality of empirical representations (appearances), by means of the principle: "that they all have (consequently that what is real in all phenomena has) a degree." Here is the second application of mathematics (mathesis intensorum) to the science of nature.
=================================== {17} The three following paragraphs will hardly be understood unless reference be made to what the Critique itself says on the subject of the Principles; they will, however, be of service in giving a general view of the Principles, and in fixing the attention on the main points. ===================================
§25Anent the relation of appearances merely with a view to their existence, the determination is not mathematical but dynamical, and can never be objectively valid, consequently never fit for experience, if it does not come under a priori principles by which the cognition of experience relative to appearances becomes even possible. Hence appearances must be subsumed under the concept of Substance, which is the foundation of all determination of existence, as a concept of the thing itself; or secondly—so far as, a succession is found among phenomena, that is, an event—under the concept of an Effect with reference to Cause; or lastly—so far as coexistence is to be known objectively, that is, by a judgment of experience—under the concept of Community (action and reaction).{18} Thus a priori principles form the basis of objectively valid, though empirical judgments, that is, of the possibility of experience so far as it must connect objects as existing in nature. These principles are the proper laws of nature, which may be termed dynamical.
=================================== {18} [Kant uses here the equivocal term Wechselwirkung.—Ed.] ===================================
Finally the cognition of the agreement and connexion not only of appearances among themselves in experience, but of their relation to experience in general, belongs to the judgments of experience. This relation contains either their agreement with the formal conditions, which the understanding cognises, or their coherence with the materials of the senses and of perception, or combines both into one concept. Consequently it contains Possibility, Actuality, and Necessity according to universal laws of nature; and this constitutes the physical doctrine of method, or the distinction of truth and of hypotheses, and the bounds of the certainty of the latter.
In order to comprise the whole matter in one idea, it is first necessary to remind the reader that we are discussing not the origin of experience, but of that which lies in experience. The former pertains to empirical psychology, and would even then never be adequately explained without the latter, which belongs to the Critique of cognition, and particularly of the understanding.
Experience consists of intuitions, which belong to the sensibility, and of judgments, which are entirely a work of the understanding. But the judgments, which the understanding forms alone from sensuous intuitions, are far from being judgments of experience. For in the one case the judgment connects only the perceptions as they are given in the sensuous intuition, while in the other the judgments must express what experience in general, and not what the mere perception (which possesses only subjective validity) contains. The judgment of experience must therefore add to the sensuous intuition and its logical connexion in a judgment (after it has been rendered universal by comparison) something that determines the synthetical judgment as necessary and therefore as universally valid. This can be nothing else than that concept which represents the intuition as determined in itself with regard to one form of judgment rather than another, viz., a concept of that synthetical unity of intuitions which can only be represented by a given logical function of judgments.
Um nun also die Möglichkeit der Erfahrung, so ferne sie, auf reinen Verstandesbegriffen a priori beruht, darzulegen, müssen wir zuvor das, was zum Urteilen überhaupt gehört, und die verschiedene Momente des Verstandes in denselben – in einer vollständigen Tafel vorstellen; denn die reinen Verstandesbegriffe, die nichts weiter sind, als Begriffe von Anschauungen überhaupt, so fern diese in Ansehung eines oder des andern dieser Momente zu Urteilen an sich selbst, mithin notwendig und allgemeingültig bestimmt sind, werden ihnen ganz genau parallel ausfallen. Hiedurch werden auch die Grundsätze a priori der Möglichkeit aller Erfahrung, als einer objektiv gültigen empirischen Erkenntnis, ganz genau bestimmt werden. Denn sie sind nichts anders, als Sätze, welche alle Wahrnehmung (gemäß gewissen allgemeinen Bedingungen der Anschauung) unter jene reine Verstandesbegriffe subsumieren.
Logische Tafel der Urteile
1.
Der Quantität nach
Allgemeine
Besondere
Einzelne
2.
Der Qualität nach
Bejahende
Verneinende
Unendliche
3.
Der Relation nach
Kategorische
Hypothetische
Disjunktive
4.
Der Modalität nach
Problematische
Assertorische
Apodiktische
Transzendentale Tafel der Verstandesbegriffe
1.
Der Quantität nach
Einheit (das Maß)
Vielheit (die Größe)
Allheit (das Ganze)
2.
Der Qualität
Realität
Negation
Einschränkung
3.
Der Relation
Substanz
Ursache
Gemeinschaft
4.
Der Modalität
Möglichkeit
Dasein
Notwendigkeit
Reine physiologische Tafel allgemeiner Grundsätze der Naturwissenschaft
1.
Axiomen
der Anschauung
2.
Antizipationen
der Wahrnehmung
3.
Analogien
der Erfahrung
4.
Postulate
des empirischen Denkens überhaupt
The sum of the matter is this: the business of the senses is to intuite—that of the understanding is to think. But thinking is uniting representations in one consciousness. This union originates either merely relative to the subject, and is accidental and subjective, or is absolute, and is necessary or objective. The union of representations in one consciousness is judgment. Thinking therefore is the same as judging, or referring representations to judgments in general. Hence judgments are either merely subjective, when representations are referred to a consciousness in one subject only, and united in it, or objective, when they are united in a consciousness generally, that is, necessarily. The logical functions of all judgments are but various modes of uniting representations in consciousness. But if they serve for concepts, they are concepts of their necessary union in a consciousness, and so principles of objectively valid judgments. This union in a consciousness is either analytical, by identity, or synthetical, by the combination and addition of various representations one to another. Experience consists in the synthetical connexion of phenomena (perceptions) in consciousness, so far as this connexion is necessary. Hence the pure concepts of the understanding are those under which all perceptions must be subsumed ere they can serve for judgments of experience, in which the synthetical unity of the perceptions is represented as necessary and universally valid.{15}
=================================== {15} But how does this proposition, "that judgments of experience contain necessity in the synthesis of perceptions," agree with my statement so often before inculcated, that "experience as cognition a posteriori can afford contingent judgments only?" When I say that experience teaches me something, I mean only the perception that lies in experience,—for example, that heat always follows the shining of the sun on a stone; consequently the proposition of experience is always so far accidental. That this heat necessarily follows the shining of the sun is contained indeed in the judgment of experience (by means of the concept of cause), yet is a fact not learned by experience; for conversely, experience is first of all generated by this addition of the concept of the understanding (of cause) to perception. How perception attains this addition may be seen by referring in the Critique itself to the section on the Transcendental faculty of Judgment [viz., in the first edition, Von dem Schematismus der reinen Verstandsbegriffe]. ===================================
Die Summe hievon ist diese: Die Sache der Sinne ist, anzuschauen; die des Verstandes, zu denken. Denken aber ist Vorstellungen in einem Bewußtsein vereinigen. Diese Vereinigung entsteht entweder bloß relativ aufs Subjekt, und ist zufällig und subjektiv, oder sie findet schlechthin statt, und ist notwendig oder objektiv. Die Vereinigung der Vorstellungen in einem Bewußtsein ist das Urteil. Also ist Denken so viel, als Urteilen, oder Vorstellungen auf Urteile überhaupt beziehen. Daher sind Urteile entweder bloß subjektiv, wenn Vorstellungen auf ein Bewußtsein in einem Subjekt allein bezogen und in ihm vereinigt werden, oder sie sind objektiv, wenn sie in einem Bewußtsein überhaupt, d.i. darin notwendig vereinigt werden. Die logische Momente aller Urteile sind so viel mögliche Arten, Vorstellungen in einem Bewußtsein zu vereinigen. Dienen aber eben dieselben als Begriffe, so sind sie Begriffe von dernotwendigenVereinigung derselben in einem Bewußtsein, mithin Prinzipien objektiv gültiger Urteile. Diese Vereinigung in einem Bewußtsein ist entweder analytisch, durch die Identität, oder synthetisch, durch die Zusammensetzung und Hinzukunft verschiedener Vorstellungen zu einander. Erfahrung besteht in der synthetischen Verknüpfung der Erscheinungen (Wahrnehmungen) in einem Bewußtsein, so fern dieselbe notwendig ist. Daher sind reine Verstandesbegriffe diejenige, unter denen alle Wahrnehmungen zuvor müssen subsumiert werden, ehe sie zu Erfahrungsurteilen dienen können, in welchen die synthetische Einheit der Wahrnehmungen als notwendig und allgemeingültig vorgestellt wird.8
Judgments, when considered merely as the condition of the union of given representations in a consciousness, are rules. These rules, so far as they represent the union as necessary, are rules a priori, and so far as they cannot be deduced from higher rules, are fundamental principles. But in regard to the possibility of all experience, merely in relation to the form of thinking in it, no conditions of judgments of experience are higher than those which bring the phenomena, according to the various form of their intuition, under pure concepts of the understanding, and render the empirical judgment objectively valid. These concepts are therefore the a priori principles of possible experience.
The principles of possible experience are then at the same time universal laws of nature, which can be cognised a priori. And thus the problem in our second question, "How is the pure Science of Nature possible?" is solved. For the system which is required for the form of a science is to be met with in perfection here, because, beyond the above-mentioned formal conditions of all judgments in general offered in logic, no others are possible, and these constitute a logical system. The concepts grounded thereupon, which contain the a priori conditions of all synthetical and necessary judgments, accordingly constitute a transcendental system. Finally the principles, by means of which all phenomena are subsumed under these concepts, constitute a physical{16} system, that is, a system of nature, which precedes all empirical cognition of nature, makes it even possible, and hence may in strictness be denominated the universal and pure science of nature.
=================================== {16} [Kant uses the term physiological in its etymological meaning as "pertaining to the science of physics," i.e., nature in general, not as we use the term now as "pertaining to the functions of the living body." Accordingly it has been translated "physical."—Ed.] ===================================
Urteile, so fern sie bloß als die Bedingung der Vereinigung gegebener Vorstellungen in einem Bewußtsein betrachtet werden, sind Regeln. Diese Regeln, so fern sie die Vereinigung als notwendig vorstellen, sind Regeln a priori, und so fern keine über sie sind, von denen sie abgeleitet werden, Grundsätze. Da nun in Ansehung der Möglichkeit aller Erfahrung, wenn man an ihr bloß die Form des Denkens betrachtet, keine Bedingungen der Erfahrungsurteile über diejenige sind, welche die Erscheinungen, nach der verschiedenen Form ihrer Anschauung, unter reine Verstandesbegriffe bringen, die das empirische Urteil objektiv-gültig machen, so sind diese die Grundsätze a priori möglicher Erfahrung.
Die Grundsätze möglicher Erfahrung sind nun zugleich allgemeine Gesetze der Natur, welche a priori erkannt werden können. Und so ist die Aufgabe, die in unsrer vorliegenden zweiten Frage liegt:Wie ist reine Vernunftwissenschaft möglich? aufgelöset. Denn das Systematische, was zur Form einer Wissenschaft erfodert wird, ist hier vollkommen anzutreffen, weil über die genannte formale Bedingungen aller Urteile überhaupt, mithin aller Regeln überhaupt, die die Logik darbietet, keine mehr möglich sind, und diese ein logisches System, die darauf gegründeten Begriffe aber, welche die Bedingungen a priori zu allen synthetischen und notwendigen Urteilen erhalten, eben darum ein transzendentales, endlich die Grundsätze, vermittelst deren alle Erscheinungen unter diese Begriffe subsumiert werden, ein physiologisches, d.i. ein Natursystem ausmachen, welches vor aller empirischen Naturerkenntnis vorhergeht, diese zuerst möglich macht, und daher die eigentliche allgemeine und reine Naturwissenschaft genannt werden kann.
The first one{17} of the physiological principles subsumes all phenomena, as intuitions in space and time, under the concept of Quantity, and is so far a principle of the application of Mathematics to experience. The second one subsumes the empirical element, viz., sensation which denotes the real in intuitions, not indeed directly under the concept of quantity, because sensation is not an intuition that contains either space or time, though it places the respective object into both. But still there is between reality (sense-representation) and the zero, or total void of intuition in time, a difference which has a quantity. For between every given degree of light and of darkness, between every degree of heat and of absolute cold, between every degree of weight and of absolute lightness, between every degree of occupied space and of totally void space, diminishing degrees can be conceived, in the same manner as between consciousness and total unconsciousness (the darkness of a psychological blank) ever diminishing degrees obtain. Hence there is no perception that can prove an absolute absence of it; for instance, no psychological darkness that cannot be considered as a kind of consciousness. This occurs in all cases of sensation, and so the understanding can anticipate even sensations, which constitute the peculiar quality of empirical representations (appearances), by means of the principle: "that they all have (consequently that what is real in all phenomena has) a degree." Here is the second application of mathematics (mathesis intensorum) to the science of nature.
=================================== {17} The three following paragraphs will hardly be understood unless reference be made to what the Critique itself says on the subject of the Principles; they will, however, be of service in giving a general view of the Principles, and in fixing the attention on the main points. ===================================
Das erste9 jener physiologischen Grundsätze subsumiert alle Erscheinungen, als Anschauungen im Raum und Zeit, unter den Begriff der Größe, und ist so fern ein Prinzip der Anwendung der Mathematik auf Erfahrung. Das zweite subsumiert das eigentlich Empirische, nämlich die Empfindung, die das Reale der Anschauungen bezeichnet, nicht geradezu unter den Begriffder Größe, weil Empfindung keine Anschauung ist, die Raum oder Zeitenthielte, ob sie gleich den ihr korrespondierenden Gegenstand in beide setzt; allein es ist zwischen Realität (Empfindungsvorstellung) und der Null, d.i. dem gänzlich Leeren der Anschauung in der Zeit, doch ein Unterschied, der eine Größe hat, da nämlich zwischen einem jeden gegebenen Grade Licht und der Finsternis, zwischen einem jeden Grade Wärme und der gänzlichen Kälte, jedem Grad der Schwere und der absoluten Leichtigkeit, jedem Grade der Erfüllung des Raumes und dem völlig leeren Raume, immer noch kleinere Grade gedacht werden können, so wie selbst zwischen einem Bewußtsein und dem völligen Unbewußtsein (psychologischer Dunkelheit) immer noch kleinere stattfinden; daher keine Wahrnehmung möglich ist, welche einen absoluten Mangel bewiese, z.B. keine psychologische Dunkelheit, die nicht als ein Bewußtsein betrachtet werden könnte, welches nur von anderem stärkeren überwogen wird, und so in allen Fällen der Empfindung, weswegen der Verstand so gar Empfindungen, welche die eigentliche Qualität der empirischen Vorstellungen (Erscheinungen) ausmachen, antizipieren kann, vermittelst des Grundsatzes, daß sie alle insgesamt, mithin das Reale aller Erscheinung Grade habe, welches die zweite Anwendung der Mathematik (mathesis intensorum) auf Naturwissenschaft ist.
Anent the relation of appearances merely with a view to their existence, the determination is not mathematical but dynamical, and can never be objectively valid, consequently never fit for experience, if it does not come under a priori principles by which the cognition of experience relative to appearances becomes even possible. Hence appearances must be subsumed under the concept of Substance, which is the foundation of all determination of existence, as a concept of the thing itself; or secondly—so far as, a succession is found among phenomena, that is, an event—under the concept of an Effect with reference to Cause; or lastly—so far as coexistence is to be known objectively, that is, by a judgment of experience—under the concept of Community (action and reaction).{18} Thus a priori principles form the basis of objectively valid, though empirical judgments, that is, of the possibility of experience so far as it must connect objects as existing in nature. These principles are the proper laws of nature, which may be termed dynamical.
=================================== {18} [Kant uses here the equivocal term Wechselwirkung.—Ed.] ===================================
Finally the cognition of the agreement and connexion not only of appearances among themselves in experience, but of their relation to experience in general, belongs to the judgments of experience. This relation contains either their agreement with the formal conditions, which the understanding cognises, or their coherence with the materials of the senses and of perception, or combines both into one concept. Consequently it contains Possibility, Actuality, and Necessity according to universal laws of nature; and this constitutes the physical doctrine of method, or the distinction of truth and of hypotheses, and the bounds of the certainty of the latter.
In Ansehung des Verhältnisses der Erscheinungen, und zwar lediglich in Absicht auf ihr Dasein, ist die Bestimmung dieses Verhältnisses nicht mathematisch, sondern dynamisch, und niemals objektiv gültig, mithin zu einer Erfahrung tauglich sein, wenn sie nicht unter Grundsätzen a priori steht, welche die Erfahrungserkenntnis in Ansehung derselben allererst möglich machen. Daher müssen Erscheinungen unter den Begriff der Substanz, welcher aller Bestimmung des Daseins, als ein Begriff vom Dinge selbst, zum Grunde liegt, oder zweitens, so fern eine Zeitfolge unter den Erscheinungen, d.i. eine Begebenheit angetroffen wird, unter den Begriff einer Wirkung in Beziehung auf Ursache, oder, so fern das Zugleichsein objektiv, d.i. durch ein Erfahrungsurteil erkannt werden soll, unter den Begriff der Gemeinschaft (Wechselwirkung) subsumiert werden, und so liegen Grundsätze a priori objektiv gültigen obgleich empirischen Urteilen, d.i. der Möglichkeit der Erfahrung, so fern sie Gegenstände dem Dasein nach in der Natur verknüpfen soll, zum Grunde. Diese Grundsätze sind die eigentlichen Naturgesetze, welche dynamisch heißen können.
Zuletzt gehört auch zu den Erfahrungsurteilen die Erkenntnis der Übereinstimmung und Verknüpfung, nicht sowohl der Erscheinungen unter einander in der Erfahrung, als vielmehr ihr Verhältnis zur Erfahrung überhaupt, welches entweder ihre Übereinstimmung mit den formalen Bedingungen, die der Verstand erkennt, oder Zusammenhang mit dem Materialen der Sinne und der Wahrnehmung, oder beiden in einen Begriff vereinigt, folglich Möglichkeit, Wirklichkeit und Notwendigkeit nach allgemeinen Naturgesetzen enthält, welches die physiologische Methodenlehre (Unterscheidung der Wahrheit und Hypothesen und die Grenzen der Zuverlässigkeit der letzteren) ausmachen würde.
Page 11 of 27 · Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant , tr. Paul Carus · Project Gutenberg