§26The third table of Principles drawn from the nature of the understanding itself after the critical method, shows an inherent perfection, which raises it far above every other table which has hitherto though in vain been tried or may yet be tried by analysing the objects themselves dogmatically. It exhibits all synthetical a priori principles completely and according to one principle, viz., the faculty of judging in general, constituting the essence of experience as regards the understanding, so that we can be certain that there are no more such principles, a satisfaction such as can never be attained by the dogmatical method. Yet is this not all: there is a still greater merit in it.
We must carefully bear in mind the proof which shows the possibility of this cognition a priori, and at the same time limits all such principles to a condition which must never be lost sight of, if we desire it not to be misunderstood, and extended in use beyond the original sense which the understanding attaches to it. This limit is that they contain nothing but the conditions of possible experience in general so far as it is subjected to laws a priori. Consequently I do not say, that things in themselves possess a quantity, that their actuality possesses a degree, their existence a connexion of accidents in a substance, etc. This nobody can prove, because such a synthetical connexion from mere concepts, without any reference to sensuous intuition on the one side, or connexion of it in a possible experience on the other, is absolutely impossible. The essential limitation of the concepts in these principles then is: That all things stand necessarily a priori under the afore-mentioned conditions, as objects of experience only.
Hence there follows secondly a specifically peculiar mode of proof of these principles: they are not directly referred to appearances and to their relations, but to the possibility of experience, of which appearances constitute the matter only, not the form. Thus they are referred to objectively and universally valid synthetical propositions, in which we distinguish judgments of experience from those of perception. This takes place because appearances, as mere intuitions, occupying a part of space and time, come under the concept of Quantity, which unites their multiplicity a priori according to rules synthetically. Again, so far as the perception contains, besides intuition, sensibility, and between the latter and nothing (i.e., the total disappearance of sensibility), there is an ever decreasing transition, it is apparent that that which is in appearances must have a degree, so far as it (viz., the perception) does not itself occupy any part of space or of time.{19} Still the transition to actuality from empty time or empty space is only possible in time; consequently though sensibility, as the quality of empirical intuition, can never be cognised a priori, by its specific difference from other sensibilities, yet it can, in a possible experience in general, as a quantity of perception be intensely distinguished from every other similar perception. Hence the application of mathematics to nature, as regards the sensuous intuition by which nature is given to us, becomes possible and is thus determined.
=================================== {19} Heat and light are in a small space just as large as to degree as in a large one; in like manner the internal representations, pain, consciousness in general, whether they last a short or a long time, need not vary as to the degree. Hence the quantity is here in a point and in a moment just as great as in any space or time however great. Degrees are therefore capable of increase, but not in intuition, rather in mere sensation (or the quantity of the degree of an intuition). Hence they can only be estimated quantitatively by the relation of 1 to 0, viz., by their capability of decreasing by infinite intermediate degrees to disappearance, or of increasing from naught through infinite gradations to a determinate sensation in a certain time. Quantitas qualitatis est gradus [i.e., the degrees of quality must be measured by equality]. ===================================
Above all, the reader must pay attention to the mode of proof of the principles which occur under the title of Analogies of experience. For these do not refer to the genesis of intuitions, as do the principles of applied mathematics, but to the connexion of their existence in experience; and this can be nothing but the determination of their existence in time according to necessary laws, under which alone the connexion is objectively valid, and thus becomes experience. The proof therefore does not turn on the synthetical unity in the connexion of things in themselves, but merely of perceptions, and of these not in regard to their matter, but to the determination of time and of the relation of their existence in it, according to universal laws. If the empirical determination in relative time is indeed objectively valid (i.e., experience), these universal laws contain the necessary determination of existence in time generally (viz., according to a rule of the understanding a priori).
In these Prolegomena I cannot further descant on the subject, but my reader (who has probably been long accustomed to consider experience a mere empirical synthesis of perceptions, and hence not considered that it goes much beyond them, as it imparts to empirical judgments universal validity, and for that purpose requires a pure and a priori unity of the understanding) is recommended to pay special attention to this distinction of experience from a mere aggregate of perceptions, and to judge the mode of proof from this point of view.
§27Now we are prepared to remove Hume's doubt. He justly maintains, that we cannot comprehend by reason the possibility of Causality, that is, of the reference of the existence of one thing to the existence of another, which is necessitated by the former. I add, that we comprehend just as little the concept of Subsistence, that is, the necessity that at the foundation of the existence of things there lies a subject which cannot itself be a predicate of any other thing; nay, we cannot even form a notion of the possibility of such a thing (though we can point out examples of its use in experience). The very same in comprehensibility affects the Community of things, as we cannot comprehend how from the state of one thing an inference to the state of quite another thing beyond it, and vice versa, can be drawn, and how substances which have each their own separate existence should depend upon one another necessarily. But I am very far from holding these concepts to be derived merely from experience, and the necessity represented in them, to be imaginary and a mere illusion produced in us by long habit. On the contrary, I have amply shown, that they and the theorems derived from them are firmly established a priori, or before all experience, and have their undoubted objective value, though only with regard to experience.
§28Though I have no notion of such a connexion of things in themselves, that they can either exist as substances, or act as causes, or stand in community with others (as parts of a real whole), and I can just as little conceive such properties in appearances as such (because those concepts contain nothing that lies in the appearances, but only what the understanding alone must think): we have yet a notion of such a connexion of representations in our understanding, and in judgments generally; consisting in this that representations appear in one sort of judgments as subject in relation to predicates, in another as reason in relation to consequences, and in a third as parts, which constitute together a total possible cognition. Besides we cognise a priori that without considering the representation of an object as determined in some of these respects, we can have no valid cognition of the object, and, if we should occupy ourselves about the object in itself, there is no possible attribute, by which I could know that it is determined under any of these aspects, that is, under the concept either of substance, or of cause, or (in relation to other substances) of community, for I have no notion of the possibility of such a connexion of existence. But the question is not how things in themselves, but how the empirical cognition of things is determined, as regards the above aspects of judgments in general, that is, how things, as objects of experience, can and shall be subsumed under these concepts of the understanding. And then it is clear, that I completely comprehend not only the possibility, but also the necessity of subsuming all phenomena under these concepts, that is, of using them for principles of the possibility of experience.
§29When making an experiment with Hume's problematical concept (his crux metaphysicorum), the concept of cause, we have, in the first place, given a priori, by means of logic, the form of a conditional judgment in general, i.e., we have one given cognition as antecedent and another as consequence. But it is possible, that in perception we may meet with a rule of relation, which runs thus: that a certain phenomenon is constantly followed by another (though not conversely), and this is a case for me to use the hypothetical judgment, and, for instance, to say, it the sun shines long enough upon a body, it grows warm. Here there is indeed as yet no necessity of connexion, or concept of cause. But I proceed and say, that if this proposition, which is merely a subjective connexion of perceptions, is to be a judgment of experience, it must be considered as necessary and universally valid. Such a proposition would be, "the sun is by its light the cause of heat." The empirical rule is now considered as a law, and as valid not merely of appearances but valid of them for the purposes of a possible experience which requires universal and therefore necessarily valid rules. I therefore easily comprehend the concept of cause, as a concept necessarily belonging to the mere form of experience, and its possibility as a synthetical union of perceptions in consciousness generally; but I do not at all comprehend the possibility of a thing generally as a cause, because the concept of cause denotes a condition not at all belonging to things, but to experience. It is nothing in fact but an objectively valid cognition of appearances and of their succession, so far as the antecedent can be conjoined with the consequent according to the rule of hypothetical judgments.
The third table of Principles drawn from the nature of the understanding itself after the critical method, shows an inherent perfection, which raises it far above every other table which has hitherto though in vain been tried or may yet be tried by analysing the objects themselves dogmatically. It exhibits all synthetical a priori principles completely and according to one principle, viz., the faculty of judging in general, constituting the essence of experience as regards the understanding, so that we can be certain that there are no more such principles, a satisfaction such as can never be attained by the dogmatical method. Yet is this not all: there is a still greater merit in it.
We must carefully bear in mind the proof which shows the possibility of this cognition a priori, and at the same time limits all such principles to a condition which must never be lost sight of, if we desire it not to be misunderstood, and extended in use beyond the original sense which the understanding attaches to it. This limit is that they contain nothing but the conditions of possible experience in general so far as it is subjected to laws a priori. Consequently I do not say, that things in themselves possess a quantity, that their actuality possesses a degree, their existence a connexion of accidents in a substance, etc. This nobody can prove, because such a synthetical connexion from mere concepts, without any reference to sensuous intuition on the one side, or connexion of it in a possible experience on the other, is absolutely impossible. The essential limitation of the concepts in these principles then is: That all things stand necessarily a priori under the afore-mentioned conditions, as objects of experience only.
Hence there follows secondly a specifically peculiar mode of proof of these principles: they are not directly referred to appearances and to their relations, but to the possibility of experience, of which appearances constitute the matter only, not the form. Thus they are referred to objectively and universally valid synthetical propositions, in which we distinguish judgments of experience from those of perception. This takes place because appearances, as mere intuitions, occupying a part of space and time, come under the concept of Quantity, which unites their multiplicity a priori according to rules synthetically. Again, so far as the perception contains, besides intuition, sensibility, and between the latter and nothing (i.e., the total disappearance of sensibility), there is an ever decreasing transition, it is apparent that that which is in appearances must have a degree, so far as it (viz., the perception) does not itself occupy any part of space or of time.{19} Still the transition to actuality from empty time or empty space is only possible in time; consequently though sensibility, as the quality of empirical intuition, can never be cognised a priori, by its specific difference from other sensibilities, yet it can, in a possible experience in general, as a quantity of perception be intensely distinguished from every other similar perception. Hence the application of mathematics to nature, as regards the sensuous intuition by which nature is given to us, becomes possible and is thus determined.
=================================== {19} Heat and light are in a small space just as large as to degree as in a large one; in like manner the internal representations, pain, consciousness in general, whether they last a short or a long time, need not vary as to the degree. Hence the quantity is here in a point and in a moment just as great as in any space or time however great. Degrees are therefore capable of increase, but not in intuition, rather in mere sensation (or the quantity of the degree of an intuition). Hence they can only be estimated quantitatively by the relation of 1 to 0, viz., by their capability of decreasing by infinite intermediate degrees to disappearance, or of increasing from naught through infinite gradations to a determinate sensation in a certain time. Quantitas qualitatis est gradus [i.e., the degrees of quality must be measured by equality]. ===================================
Above all, the reader must pay attention to the mode of proof of the principles which occur under the title of Analogies of experience. For these do not refer to the genesis of intuitions, as do the principles of applied mathematics, but to the connexion of their existence in experience; and this can be nothing but the determination of their existence in time according to necessary laws, under which alone the connexion is objectively valid, and thus becomes experience. The proof therefore does not turn on the synthetical unity in the connexion of things in themselves, but merely of perceptions, and of these not in regard to their matter, but to the determination of time and of the relation of their existence in it, according to universal laws. If the empirical determination in relative time is indeed objectively valid (i.e., experience), these universal laws contain the necessary determination of existence in time generally (viz., according to a rule of the understanding a priori).
In these Prolegomena I cannot further descant on the subject, but my reader (who has probably been long accustomed to consider experience a mere empirical synthesis of perceptions, and hence not considered that it goes much beyond them, as it imparts to empirical judgments universal validity, and for that purpose requires a pure and a priori unity of the understanding) is recommended to pay special attention to this distinction of experience from a mere aggregate of perceptions, and to judge the mode of proof from this point of view.
Obgleich die dritteaus der Natur des Verstandes selbstnach kritischer Methode gezogene Tafel der Grundsätze eine Vollkommenheit an sich zeigt, darin sie sich weit über jede andre erhebt, dievon den Sachen selbstauf dogmatische Weise, obgleich vergeblich, jemals versucht worden ist, oder nur künftig versucht werden mag: nämlich daß sie alle synthetische Grundsätze a priori vollständig und nach einem Prinzip, nämlich dem Vermögen zu Urteilen überhaupt, welches das Wesen der Erfahrung in Absicht auf den Verstand ausmacht, ausgeführt worden, so daß man gewiß sein kann, es gebe keine dergleichen Grundsätze mehr (eine Befriedigung, die die dogmatische Methode niemals verschaffen kann), so ist dieses doch bei weitem noch nicht ihr größtes Verdienst.
Man muß auf den Beweisgrund Acht geben, der die Möglichkeit dieser Erkenntnis a priori entdeckt, und alle solche Grundsätze zugleich auf eine Bedingung einschränkt, die niemals übersehen werden muß, wenn sie nicht mißverstanden und im Gebrauche weiter ausgedehnt werden soll, als der ursprüngliche Sinn, den der Verstand darin legt, es haben will: nämlich, daß sie nur die Bedingungen möglicher Erfahrung überhaupt enthalten, so fern sie Gesetzen a priori unterworfen ist. So sage ich nicht: daß Dingean sich selbsteine Große, ihre Realität einen Grad, ihre Existenz Verknüpfung der Akzidenzen in einer Substanz u.s.w. enthalte; denn das kann niemand beweisen, weil eine solche synthetische Verknüpfung aus bloßen Begriffen, wo alle Beziehung auf sinnliche Anschauung einer Seits, und alle Verknüpfung derselben in einer möglichen Erfahrung anderer Seits, mangelt, schlechterdings unmöglich ist. Die wesentliche Einschränkung der Begriffe also in diesen Grundsätzen ist: daß alle Dinge nurals Gegenstände der Erfahrungunter den genannten Bedingungen notwendig a priori stehen.
Hieraus folgt denn zweitens auch eine spezifisch eigentümliche Beweisart derselben: daß die gedachte Grundsätze auch nicht geradezu auf Erscheinungen und ihr Verhältnis, sondern auf die Möglichkeit der Erfahrung, wovon Erscheinungen nur die Materie, nicht aber die Form ausmachen, d.i. auf objektiv- und allgemeingültige synthetische Sätze, worin sich eben Erfahrungsurteile von bloßen Wahrnehmungsurteilen unterscheiden, bezogen werden. Dieses geschieht dadurch, daß die Erscheinungen als bloße Anschauungen,welche einen Teil von Raum und Zeit einnehmen, unter dem Begriff der Größe stehen, welcher das Mannigfaltige derselben a priori nach Regeln synthetisch vereinigt; daß, so fern die Wahrnehmung außer der Anschauung auch Empfindung enthält, zwischen welcher und der Null, d.i. dem völligen Verschwinden derselben, jederzeit ein Übergang durch Verringerung stattfindet, das Reale der Erscheinungen einen Grad haben müsse, so fern sie nämlich selbstkeinen Teil von Raum oder Zeit einnimmt,10 aber doch der Übergang zu ihr von der leeren Zeit oder Raum nur in der Zeit möglich ist, mithin, obzwar Empfindung, als die Qualität der empirischen Anschauung, in Ansehung dessen, worin sie sich spezifisch von andern Empfindungen unterscheidet, niemals a priori erkannt werden kann, sie dennoch in einer möglichen Erfahrung überhaupt, als Größe der Wahrnehmung intensiv von jeder andern gleichartigen unterschieden werden könne; woraus denn die Anwendung der Mathematik auf Natur, in Ansehung der sinnlichen Anschauung, durch welche sie uns gegeben wird, zuerst möglich gemacht, und bestimmt wird.
Am meisten aber muß der Leser auf die Beweisart der Grundsätze, die unter dem Namen der Analogien der Erfahrung vorkommen, aufmerksam sein. Denn weil diese nicht, so wie die Grundsätze der Anwendung der Mathematik auf Naturwissenschaft überhaupt, die Erzeugung der Anschauungen, sondern die Verknüpfung ihres Daseins in einer Erfahrung betreffen, diese aber nicht anders, als die Bestimmung der Existenz in der Zeit nach notwendigen Gesetzen sein kann, unter denen sie allein objektiv-gültig, mithin Erfahrung ist: so geht der Beweis nicht auf die synthetische Einheit in der Verknüpfungder Dingean sich selbst, sondern derWahrnehmungen, und zwar dieser nicht in Ansehung ihres Inhalts, sondern der Zeitbestimmung und des Verhältnisses des Daseins in ihr, nach allgemeinen Gesetzen. Diese allgemeinen Gesetze enthalten also die Notwendigkeit der Bestimmung des Daseins in der Zeit überhaupt (folglich nach einer Regel des Verstandes a priori), wenn die empirische Bestimmung in der relativen Zeit objektiv-gültig, mithin Erfahrung sein soll. Mehr kann ich hier als in Prolegomenen nicht anführen, als nur, daß ich dem Leser, welcher in der langen Gewohnheit steckt, Erfahrung vor eine bloß empirische Zusammensetzung der Wahrnehmungen zu halten, und daher daran gar nicht denkt, daß sie viel weiter geht, als diese reichen, nämlich empirischen Urteilen Allgemeingültigkeit gibt und dazu einer reinen Verstandeseinheit bedarf, die a priori vorhergeht, empfehle: auf diesen Unterschied der Erfahrung von einem bloßen Aggregat von Wahrnehmungen wohl Acht zu haben, und aus diesem Gesichtspunkte die Beweisart zu beurteilen.
Now we are prepared to remove Hume's doubt. He justly maintains, that we cannot comprehend by reason the possibility of Causality, that is, of the reference of the existence of one thing to the existence of another, which is necessitated by the former. I add, that we comprehend just as little the concept of Subsistence, that is, the necessity that at the foundation of the existence of things there lies a subject which cannot itself be a predicate of any other thing; nay, we cannot even form a notion of the possibility of such a thing (though we can point out examples of its use in experience). The very same in comprehensibility affects the Community of things, as we cannot comprehend how from the state of one thing an inference to the state of quite another thing beyond it, and vice versa, can be drawn, and how substances which have each their own separate existence should depend upon one another necessarily. But I am very far from holding these concepts to be derived merely from experience, and the necessity represented in them, to be imaginary and a mere illusion produced in us by long habit. On the contrary, I have amply shown, that they and the theorems derived from them are firmly established a priori, or before all experience, and have their undoubted objective value, though only with regard to experience.
Hier ist nun der Ort, den Humischen Zweifel aus dem Grunde zu heben. Er behauptete mit Recht; daß wir die Möglichkeit der Kausalität, d.i. der Beziehung des Daseins eines Dinges auf das Dasein von irgend etwas anderem, was durch jenes notwendig gesetzt werde, durch Vernunft auf keine Weise einsehen. Ich setze noch hinzu, daß wir eben so wenig den Begriff der Subsistenz, d.i. der Notwendigkeit darin einsehen, daß dem Dasein der Dinge ein Subjekt zum Grunde liege, das selbst kein Prädikat von irgend einem anderen Dinge sein könne, ja sogar, daß wir uns keinen Begriff von der Möglichkeit eines solchen Dinges machen können (obgleich wir in der Erfahrung Beispiele seines Gebrauchs aufzeigen können), imgleichen, daß eben diese Unbegreiflichkeit auch die Gemeinschaft der Dinge betreffe, indem gar nicht einzusehen ist, wie aus dem Zustande eines Dinges eine Folge auf den Zustand ganz anderer Dinge außer ihm, und so wechselseitig, könne gezogen werden, und wie Substanzen, deren jede doch ihre eigene abgesonderte Existenz hat, von einander und zwar notwendig abhängen sollen. Gleichwohl bin ich weit davon entfernet, diese Begriffe als bloß aus der Erfahrung entlehnt, und die Notwendigkeit, die in ihnen vorgestellt wird, als angedichtet, und vor bloßen Schein zu halten, den uns eine lange Gewohnheit vorspiegelt; vielmehr habe ich hinreichend gezeigt, daß sie und die Grundsätze aus denselben a priori vor aller Erfahrung fest stehen, und ihre ungezweifelte objektive Richtigkeit, aber freilich nur in Ansehung der Erfahrung haben.
Though I have no notion of such a connexion of things in themselves, that they can either exist as substances, or act as causes, or stand in community with others (as parts of a real whole), and I can just as little conceive such properties in appearances as such (because those concepts contain nothing that lies in the appearances, but only what the understanding alone must think): we have yet a notion of such a connexion of representations in our understanding, and in judgments generally; consisting in this that representations appear in one sort of judgments as subject in relation to predicates, in another as reason in relation to consequences, and in a third as parts, which constitute together a total possible cognition. Besides we cognise a priori that without considering the representation of an object as determined in some of these respects, we can have no valid cognition of the object, and, if we should occupy ourselves about the object in itself, there is no possible attribute, by which I could know that it is determined under any of these aspects, that is, under the concept either of substance, or of cause, or (in relation to other substances) of community, for I have no notion of the possibility of such a connexion of existence. But the question is not how things in themselves, but how the empirical cognition of things is determined, as regards the above aspects of judgments in general, that is, how things, as objects of experience, can and shall be subsumed under these concepts of the understanding. And then it is clear, that I completely comprehend not only the possibility, but also the necessity of subsuming all phenomena under these concepts, that is, of using them for principles of the possibility of experience.
Ob ich also gleich von einer solchen Verknüpfung der Dinge an sich selbst, wie sie als Substanz existieren, oder als Ursache wirken, oder mit andern (als Teile eines realen Ganzen) in Gemeinschaft stehen können, nicht den mindesten Begriff habe, noch weniger aber dergleichen Eigenschaften an Erscheinungen als Erscheinungen denken kann (weil jene Begriffe nichts, was in den Erscheinungen liegt, sondern, was der Verstand allein denken muß, enthalten), so haben wir doch von einer solchen Verknüpfung der Vorstellungen in unserm Verstande, und zwar in Urteilen überhaupt, einen dergleichen Begriff, nämlich: daß Vorstellungen in einer Art Urteile als Subjekt in Beziehung auf Prädikate, in einer anderen als Grund in Beziehung auf Folge, und in einer dritten als Teile, die zusammen ein ganzes mögliches Erkenntnis aus machen, gehören. Ferner erkennen wir a priori; daß, ohne die Vorstellung eines Objekts in Ansehung einer oder der andern dieser Momente als bestimmt anzusehen, wir gar keine Erkenntnis, die von dem Gegenstande gelte, haben könnten, und, wenn wir uns mit dem Gegenstande an sich selbst beschäftigten, so wäre kein einziges Merkmal möglich, woran ich erkennen könnte, daß es in Ansehung eines oder des andern gedachter Momente bestimmt sei, d.i. unter den Begriff der Substanz, oder der Ursache, oder (im Verhältnis gegen andere Substanzen) unter den Begriff der Gemeinschaft gehöre; denn von der Möglichkeit einer solchen Verknüpfung des Daseins habe ich keinen Begriff. Es ist aber auch die Frage nicht, wie Dinge an sich, sondern, wie Erfahrungserkenntnis der Dinge in Ansehung gedachter Momente der Urteile überhaupt bestimmt sei, d.i. wie Dinge, als Gegenstände der Erfahrung, unter jene Verstandesbegriffe können und sollen subsumiert werden. Und da ist es klar: daß ich nicht allein die Möglichkeit, sondern auch die Notwendigkeit, alle Erscheinungen unter diese Begriffe zu subsumieren, d.i. sie zu Grundsätzen der Möglichkeit der Erfahrung zu brauchen, vollkommen einsehe,
When making an experiment with Hume's problematical concept (his crux metaphysicorum), the concept of cause, we have, in the first place, given a priori, by means of logic, the form of a conditional judgment in general, i.e., we have one given cognition as antecedent and another as consequence. But it is possible, that in perception we may meet with a rule of relation, which runs thus: that a certain phenomenon is constantly followed by another (though not conversely), and this is a case for me to use the hypothetical judgment, and, for instance, to say, it the sun shines long enough upon a body, it grows warm. Here there is indeed as yet no necessity of connexion, or concept of cause. But I proceed and say, that if this proposition, which is merely a subjective connexion of perceptions, is to be a judgment of experience, it must be considered as necessary and universally valid. Such a proposition would be, "the sun is by its light the cause of heat." The empirical rule is now considered as a law, and as valid not merely of appearances but valid of them for the purposes of a possible experience which requires universal and therefore necessarily valid rules. I therefore easily comprehend the concept of cause, as a concept necessarily belonging to the mere form of experience, and its possibility as a synthetical union of perceptions in consciousness generally; but I do not at all comprehend the possibility of a thing generally as a cause, because the concept of cause denotes a condition not at all belonging to things, but to experience. It is nothing in fact but an objectively valid cognition of appearances and of their succession, so far as the antecedent can be conjoined with the consequent according to the rule of hypothetical judgments.
Um einen Versuch anHumesproblematischem Begriff (diesem seinem crux metaphysicorum), nämlich dem Begriffe der Ursache, zu machen, so ist mir erstlich vermittelst der Logik die Form eines bedingten Urteils überhaupt, nämlich, ein gegebenes Erkenntnis als Grund, und das andere als Folge zu gebrauchen, a priori gegeben. Es ist aber möglich, daß in der Wahrnehmung eine Regel des Verhältnisses angetroffen wird, die da sagt: daß auf eine gewisse Erscheinung eine andere (obgleich nicht umgekehrt) beständig folgt, und dieses ist ein Fall, mich des hypothetischen Urteils zu bedienen, und z.B. zu sagen, wenn ein Körper lange gnug von der Sonne beschienen ist, so wird er warm. Hier ist nun freilich noch nicht eine Notwendigkeit der Verknüpfung, mithin der Begriff der Ursache. Allein ich fahre fort, und sage: wenn obiger Satz, der bloß eine subjektive Verknüpfung der Wahrnehmungen ist, ein Erfahrungssatz sein soll, so muß er als notwendig und allgemeingültig angesehen werden. Ein solcher Satz aber würde sein: Sonne ist durch ihr Licht die Ursache der Wärme. Die obige empirische Regel wird nunmehr als Gesetz angesehen, und zwar nicht als geltend bloß von Erscheinungen, sondern von ihnen zum Behuf einer möglichen Erfahrung, welche durchgängig und also notwendig gültige Regeln bedarf. Ich sehe also den Begriff der Ursache, als einen zur bloßen Form der Erfahrung notwendig gehörigen Begriff, und dessen Möglichkeit als einer synthetischen Vereinigung der Wahrnehmungen in einem Bewußtsein überhaupt, sehr wohl ein; die Möglichkeit eines Dinges überhaupt aber, als einer Ursache, sehe ich gar nicht ein, und zwar darum, weil der Begriff der Ursache ganz und gar keine den Dingen, sondern nur der Erfahrung anhängende Bedingung andeutet, nämlich, daß diese nur eine objektiv-gültige Erkenntnis von Erscheinungen und ihrer Zeitfolge sein könne, so fern die vorhergehende mit der nachfolgenden nach der Regel hypothetischer Urteile verbunden werden kann.
Page 12 of 27 · Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant , tr. Paul Carus · Project Gutenberg