§30Hence if the pure concepts of the understanding do not refer to objects of experience but to things in themselves (noumena), they have no signification whatever. They serve, as it were, only to decipher appearances, that we may be able to read them as experience. The principles which arise from their reference to the sensible world, only serve our understanding for empirical use. Beyond this they are arbitrary combinations, without objective reality, and we can neither cognise their possibility a priori, nor verify their reference to objects, let alone make it intelligible by any example; because examples can only be borrowed from some possible experience, consequently the objects of these concepts can be found nowhere but in a possible experience.
This complete (though to its originator unexpected) solution of Hume's problem rescues for the pure concepts of the understanding their a priori origin, and for the universal laws of nature their validity, as laws of the understanding, yet in such a way as to limit their use to experience, because their possibility depends solely on the reference of the understanding to experience, but with a completely reversed mode of connexion which never occurred to Hume, not by deriving them from experience, but by deriving experience from them.
This is therefore the result of all our foregoing inquiries: "All synthetical principles a priori are nothing more than principles of possible experience, and can never be referred to things in themselves, but to appearances as objects of experience. And hence pure mathematics as well as a pure science of nature can never be referred to anything more than mere appearances, and can only represent either that which makes experience generally possible, or else that which, as it is derived from these principles, must always be capable of being represented in some possible experience.
§31And thus we have at last something definite, upon which to depend in all metaphysical enterprises, which have hitherto, boldly enough but always at random, attempted everything without discrimination. That the aim of their exertions should be so near, struck neither the dogmatical thinkers nor those who, confident in their supposed sound common sense, started with concepts and principles of pure reason (which were legitimate and natural, but destined for mere empirical use) in quest of fields of knowledge, to which they neither knew nor could know any determinate bounds, because they had never reflected nor were able to reflect on the nature or even on the possibility of such a pure understanding.
Many a naturalist of pure reason (by which I mean the man who believes he can decide in matters of metaphysics without any science) may pretend, that he long ago by the prophetic spirit of his sound sense, not only suspected, but knew and comprehended, what is here propounded with so much ado, or, if he likes, with prolix and pedantic pomp: "that with all our reason we can never reach beyond the field of experience." But when he is questioned about his rational principles individually, he must grant, that there are many of them which he has not taken from experience, and which are therefore independent of it and valid a priori. How then and on what grounds will he restrain both himself and the dogmatist, who makes use of these concepts and principles beyond all possible experience, because they are recognised to be independent of it? And even he, this adept in sound sense, in spite of all his assumed and cheaply acquired wisdom, is not exempt from wandering inadvertently beyond objects of experience into the field of chimeras. He is often deeply enough involved in them, though in announcing everything as mere probability, rational conjecture, or analogy, he gives by his popular language a color to his groundless pretensions.
§32Since the oldest days of philosophy inquirers into pure reason have conceived, besides the things of sense, or appearances (phenomena), which make up the sensible world, certain creations of the understanding (Verstandeswesen), called noumena, which should constitute an intelligible world. And as appearance and illusion were by those men identified (a thing which we may well excuse in an undeveloped epoch), actuality was only conceded to the creations of thought.
And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing in its internal constitution, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something. The understanding therefore, by assuming appearances, grants the existence of things in themselves also, and so far we may say, that the representation of such things as form the basis of phenomena, consequently of mere creations of the understanding, is not only admissible, but unavoidable.
Our critical deduction by no means excludes things of that sort (noumena), but rather limits the principles of the Aesthetic (the science of the sensibility) to this, that they shall not extend to all things, as everything would then be turned into mere appearance, but that they shall only hold good of objects of possible experience. Hereby then objects of the understanding are granted, but with the inculcation of this rule which admits of no exception: "that we neither know nor can know anything at all definite of these pure objects of the understanding, because our pure concepts of the understanding as well as our pure intuitions extend to nothing but objects of possible experience, consequently to mere things of sense, and as soon as we leave this sphere these concepts retain no meaning whatever."
§33There is indeed something seductive in our pure concepts of the understanding, which tempts us to a transcendent use, —a use which transcends all possible experience. Not only are our concepts of substance, of power, of action, of reality, and others, quite independent of experience, containing nothing of sense appearance, and so apparently applicable to things in themselves (noumena), but, what strengthens this conjecture, they contain a necessity of determination in themselves, which experience never attains. The concept of cause implies a rule, according to which one state follows another necessarily; but experience can only show us, that one state of things often, or at most, commonly, follows another, and therefore affords neither strict universality, nor necessity.
Hence the Categories seem to have a deeper meaning and import than can be exhausted by their empirical use, and so the understanding inadvertently adds for itself to the house of experience a much more extensive wing, which it fills with nothing but creatures of thought, without ever observing that it has transgressed with its otherwise lawful concepts the bounds of their use.
§34Two important, and even indispensable, though very dry, investigations had therefore become indispensable in the Critique of Pure Reason,—viz., the two chapters "Vom Schematismus der reinen Verstandsbegriffe," and "Vom Grunde der Unterscheidung aller Verstandesbegriffe überhaupt in Phänomena und Noumena." In the former it is shown, that the senses furnish not the pure concepts of the understanding in concreto, but only the schedule for their use, and that the object conformable to it occurs only in experience (as the product of the understanding from materials of the sensibility). In the latter it is shown, that, although our pure concepts of the understanding and our principles are independent of experience, and despite of the apparently greater sphere of their use, still nothing whatever can be thought by them beyond the field of experience, because they can do nothing but merely determine the logical form of the judgment relatively to given intuitions. But as there is no intuition at all beyond the field of the sensibility, these pure concepts, as they cannot possibly be exhibited in concreto, are void of all meaning; consequently all these noumena, together with their complex, the intelligible world,{20} are nothing but representation of a problem, of which the object in itself is possible, but the solution, from the nature of our understanding, totally impossible. For our understanding is not a faculty of intuition, but of the connexion of given intuitions in experience. Experience must therefore contain all the objects for our concepts; but beyond it no concepts have any significance, as there is no intuition that might offer them a foundation.
=================================== {20} We speak of the "intelligible world," not (as the usual expression is) "intellectual world." For cognitions are intellectual through the understanding, and refer to our world of sense also; but objects, so far as they can be represented merely by the understanding, and to which none of our sensible intuitions can refer, are termed "intelligible." But as some possible intuition must correspond to every object, we would have to assume an understanding that intuites things immediately; but of such we have not the least notion, nor have we of the things of the understanding [Verstandeswesen], to which it should be applied. ===================================
§35The imagination may perhaps be forgiven for occasional vagaries, and for not keeping carefully within the limits of experience, since it gains life and vigor by such flights, and since it is always easier to moderate its boldness, than to stimulate its languor. But the understanding which ought to think can never be forgiven for indulging in vagaries; for we depend upon it alone for assistance to set bounds, when necessary, to the vagaries of the imagination.
But the understanding begins its aberrations very innocently and modestly. It first elucidates the elementary cognitions, which inhere in it prior to all experience, but yet must always have their application in experience. It gradually drops these limits, and what is there to prevent it, as it has quite freely derived its principles from itself? And then it proceeds first to newly-imagined powers in nature, then to beings, outside nature; in short to a world, for whose construction the materials cannot be wanting, because fertile fiction furnishes them abundantly, and though not confirmed, is never refuted, by experience. This is the reason that young thinkers are so partial to metaphysics of the truly dogmatical kind, and often sacrifice to it their time and their talents, which might be otherwise better employed.
But there is no use in trying to moderate these fruitless endeavors of pure reason by all manner of cautions as to the difficulties of solving questions so occult, by complaints of the limits of our reason, and by degrading our assertions into mere conjectures. For if their impossibility is not distinctly shown, and reason's cognition of its own essence does not become a true science, in which the field of its right use is distinguished, so to say, with mathematical certainty from that of its worthless and idle use, these fruitless efforts will never be abandoned for good.
Hence if the pure concepts of the understanding do not refer to objects of experience but to things in themselves (noumena), they have no signification whatever. They serve, as it were, only to decipher appearances, that we may be able to read them as experience. The principles which arise from their reference to the sensible world, only serve our understanding for empirical use. Beyond this they are arbitrary combinations, without objective reality, and we can neither cognise their possibility a priori, nor verify their reference to objects, let alone make it intelligible by any example; because examples can only be borrowed from some possible experience, consequently the objects of these concepts can be found nowhere but in a possible experience.
This complete (though to its originator unexpected) solution of Hume's problem rescues for the pure concepts of the understanding their a priori origin, and for the universal laws of nature their validity, as laws of the understanding, yet in such a way as to limit their use to experience, because their possibility depends solely on the reference of the understanding to experience, but with a completely reversed mode of connexion which never occurred to Hume, not by deriving them from experience, but by deriving experience from them.
This is therefore the result of all our foregoing inquiries: "All synthetical principles a priori are nothing more than principles of possible experience, and can never be referred to things in themselves, but to appearances as objects of experience. And hence pure mathematics as well as a pure science of nature can never be referred to anything more than mere appearances, and can only represent either that which makes experience generally possible, or else that which, as it is derived from these principles, must always be capable of being represented in some possible experience.
Daher haben auch die reine Verstandesbegriffe ganz und gar keine Bedeutung, wenn sie von Gegenständen der Erfahrung abgehen und auf Dinge an sich selbst (noumena) bezogen werden wollen. Sie dienen gleichsam nur, Erscheinungen zu buchstabieren, um sie als Erfahrung lesen zu können; die Grundsätze, die aus der Beziehung derselben auf die Sinnenwelt entspringen, dienen nur unserm Verstande zum Erfahrungsgebrauch; weiter hinaus sind es willkürliche Verbindungen, ohne objektive Realität, deren Möglichkeit man weder a priori erkennen, noch ihre Beziehung auf Gegenstände durch irgend ein Beispiel bestätigen, oder nur verständlich machen kann, weil alle Beispiele nur aus irgend einer möglichen Erfahrung entlehnt, mithin auch die Gegenstände jener Begriffe nirgend anders, als in einer möglichen Erfahrung angetroffen werden können.
Diese vollständige, obzwar wider die Vermutung des Urhebers ausfallende Auflösung des Humischen Problems rettet also den reinen Verstandesbegriffen ihren Ursprung a priori, und den allgemeinen Naturgesetzen ihre Gültigkeit, als Gesetzen des Verstandes, doch so, daß sie ihren Gebrauch nur auf Erfahrung einschränkt, darum, weil ihre Möglichkeit bloß in der Beziehung des Verstandes auf Erfahrung ihren Grund hat: nicht aber so, daß sie sich von Erfahrung, sondern daß Erfahrung sich von ihnen ableitet, welche ganz umgekehrte Art der VerknüpfungHumesich niemals einfallen ließ.
Hieraus fließt nun folgendes Resultat aller bisherigen Nachforschungen: »Alle synthetische Grundsätze a priori sind nichts weiter, als Prinzipien möglicher Erfahrung« und können niemals auf Dinge an sich selbst, sondern nur auf Erscheinungen, als Gegenstände der Erfahrung, bezogen werden. Daher auch reine Mathematik sowohl als reine Naturwissenschaft niemals auf irgend etwas mehr als bloße Erscheinungen gehen können, und nur das vorstellen, was entweder Erfahrung überhaupt möglich macht, oder was, indem es aus diesen Prinzipien abgeleitet ist, jederzeit in irgend einer möglichen Erfahrung muß vorgestellt werden können.
And thus we have at last something definite, upon which to depend in all metaphysical enterprises, which have hitherto, boldly enough but always at random, attempted everything without discrimination. That the aim of their exertions should be so near, struck neither the dogmatical thinkers nor those who, confident in their supposed sound common sense, started with concepts and principles of pure reason (which were legitimate and natural, but destined for mere empirical use) in quest of fields of knowledge, to which they neither knew nor could know any determinate bounds, because they had never reflected nor were able to reflect on the nature or even on the possibility of such a pure understanding.
Many a naturalist of pure reason (by which I mean the man who believes he can decide in matters of metaphysics without any science) may pretend, that he long ago by the prophetic spirit of his sound sense, not only suspected, but knew and comprehended, what is here propounded with so much ado, or, if he likes, with prolix and pedantic pomp: "that with all our reason we can never reach beyond the field of experience." But when he is questioned about his rational principles individually, he must grant, that there are many of them which he has not taken from experience, and which are therefore independent of it and valid a priori. How then and on what grounds will he restrain both himself and the dogmatist, who makes use of these concepts and principles beyond all possible experience, because they are recognised to be independent of it? And even he, this adept in sound sense, in spite of all his assumed and cheaply acquired wisdom, is not exempt from wandering inadvertently beyond objects of experience into the field of chimeras. He is often deeply enough involved in them, though in announcing everything as mere probability, rational conjecture, or analogy, he gives by his popular language a color to his groundless pretensions.
Und so hat man denn einmal etwas Bestimmtes, und woran man sich bei allen metaphysischen Unternehmungen, die bisher, kühn gnug, aber jederzeit blind, über alles ohne Unterschied gegangen sind, halten kann. Dogmatische Denker haben sich es niemals einfallen lassen, daß das Ziel ihrer Bemühungen so kurz sollte ausgesteckt werden, und selbst diejenige nicht, die, trotzig auf ihre vermeinte gesunde Vernunft, mit zwar rechtmäßigen und natürlichen, aber zum bloßen Erfahrungsgebrauch bestimmten Begriffen und Grundsätzen der reinen Vernunft auf Einsichten ausgingen, vor die sie keine bestimmte Grenzen kannten, noch kennen konnten, weil sie über die Natur und selbst die Möglichkeit eines solchen reinen Verstandes niemals entweder nachgedacht hatten oder nachzudenken vermochten.
Mancher Naturalist der reinen Vernunft (darunter ich den verstehe, welcher sich zutraut, ohne alle Wissenschaft in Sachen der Metaphysik zu entscheiden) möchte wohl vorgeben, er habe das, was hier mit so viel Zurüstung, oder, wenn er lieber will, mit weitschweifigem pedantischen Pompe vorgetragen worden, schon längst durch den Wahrsagergeist seiner gesunden Vernunft nicht bloß vermutet, sondern auch gewußt und eingesehen: »daß wir nämlich mit aller unserer Vernunft über das Feld der Erfahrungen nie hinaus kommen können«. Allein da er doch, wenn man ihm seine Vernunftprinzipien allmählich abfrägt, gestehen muß, daß darunter viele sind, die er nicht aus Erfahrung geschöpft hat, die also von dieser unabhängig und a priori gültig sind, wie und mit welchen Gründen will er denn den Dogmatiker und sich selbst in Schranken halten, der dieser Begriffe und Grundsätze über alle mögliche Erfahrung hinaus bedient, darum eben weil sie unabhängig von dieser erkannt werden. Und selbst er, dieser Adept der gesunden Vernunft, ist so sicher nicht, ungeachtet aller seiner angemaßten wohlfeil erworbenen Weisheit, unvermerkt über Gegenstände der Erfahrung hinaus in das Feld der Hirngespinste zu geraten. Auch ist er gemeiniglich tief gnug drin verwickelt, ob er zwar durch die populäre Sprache, da er alles bloß vor Wahrscheinlichkeit, vernünftige Vermutung oder Analogie aus gibt, seinen grundlosen Ansprüchen einigen Anstrich gibt.
Since the oldest days of philosophy inquirers into pure reason have conceived, besides the things of sense, or appearances (phenomena), which make up the sensible world, certain creations of the understanding (Verstandeswesen), called noumena, which should constitute an intelligible world. And as appearance and illusion were by those men identified (a thing which we may well excuse in an undeveloped epoch), actuality was only conceded to the creations of thought.
And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing in its internal constitution, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something. The understanding therefore, by assuming appearances, grants the existence of things in themselves also, and so far we may say, that the representation of such things as form the basis of phenomena, consequently of mere creations of the understanding, is not only admissible, but unavoidable.
Our critical deduction by no means excludes things of that sort (noumena), but rather limits the principles of the Aesthetic (the science of the sensibility) to this, that they shall not extend to all things, as everything would then be turned into mere appearance, but that they shall only hold good of objects of possible experience. Hereby then objects of the understanding are granted, but with the inculcation of this rule which admits of no exception: "that we neither know nor can know anything at all definite of these pure objects of the understanding, because our pure concepts of the understanding as well as our pure intuitions extend to nothing but objects of possible experience, consequently to mere things of sense, and as soon as we leave this sphere these concepts retain no meaning whatever."
Schon von den ältesten Zeiten der Philosophie her haben sich die Forscher der reinen Vernunft, außer den Sinnenwesen oder Erscheinungen (phaenomena), die die Sinnenwelt ausmachen, noch besondere Verstandeswesen (noumena), welche eine Verstandeswelt ausmachen sollten, gedacht, und, da sie (welches einem noch unausgebildeten Zeitalter wohl zu verzeihen war) Erscheinung und Schein vor einerlei hielten, den Verstandeswesen allein Wirklichkeit zugestanden.
In der Tat, wenn wir die Gegenstände der Sinne, wie billig, als bloße Erscheinungen ansehen, so gestehen wir hiedurch doch zugleich, daß ihnen ein Ding an sich selbst zum Grunde liege, ob wir dasselbe gleich nicht, wie es an sich beschaffen sei, sondern nur seine Erscheinung, d.i. die Art, wie unsre Sinnen von diesem unbekannten Etwas affiziert werden, kennen. Der Verstand also, eben dadurch, daß er Erscheinungen annimmt, gesteht auch das Dasein von Dingen an sich selbst zu, und so fern können wir sagen, daß die Vorstellung solcher Wesen, die den Erscheinungen zum Grunde liegen, mithin bloßer Verstandeswesen nicht allein zulässig, sondern auch unvermeidlich sei.
Unsere kritische Deduktion schließt dergleichen Dinge (noumena) auch keinesweges aus, sondern schränkt vielmehr die Grundsätze der Ästhetik dahin ein, daß sie sich ja nicht auf alle Dinge erstrecken sollen, wodurch alles in bloße Erscheinung verwandelt werden würde, sondern daß sie nur von Gegenständen einer möglichen Erfahrung gelten sollen. Also werden hiedurch Verstandeswesen zugelassen, nur mit Einschärfung dieser Regel, die gar keine Ausnahme leidet: daß wir von diesen reinen Verstandeswesen ganz und gar nichts Bestimmtes wissen, noch wissen können, weil unsere reine Verstandesbegriffe sowohl als reine Anschauungen auf nichts als Gegenstände möglicher Erfahrung, mithin auf bloße Sinnenwesen gehen, und, so bald man von diesen abgeht, jenen Begriffen nicht die mindeste Bedeutung mehr übrig bleibt.
There is indeed something seductive in our pure concepts of the understanding, which tempts us to a transcendent use, —a use which transcends all possible experience. Not only are our concepts of substance, of power, of action, of reality, and others, quite independent of experience, containing nothing of sense appearance, and so apparently applicable to things in themselves (noumena), but, what strengthens this conjecture, they contain a necessity of determination in themselves, which experience never attains. The concept of cause implies a rule, according to which one state follows another necessarily; but experience can only show us, that one state of things often, or at most, commonly, follows another, and therefore affords neither strict universality, nor necessity.
Hence the Categories seem to have a deeper meaning and import than can be exhausted by their empirical use, and so the understanding inadvertently adds for itself to the house of experience a much more extensive wing, which it fills with nothing but creatures of thought, without ever observing that it has transgressed with its otherwise lawful concepts the bounds of their use.
Es ist in der Tat mit unseren reinen Verstandesbegriffen etwas Verfängliches, in Ansehung der Anlockung zu einem transzendenten Gebrauch; denn so nenne ich denjenigen, der über alle mögliche Erfahrung hinausgeht. Nicht allein, daß unsere Begriffe der Substanz, der Kraft, der Handlung, der Realität etc. ganz von der Erfahrung unabhängig sind, imgleichen gar keine Erscheinung der Sinne enthalten, also in der Tat auf Dinge an sich selbst (noumena) zu gehen scheinen, sondern, was diese Vermutung noch bestärkt, sie enthalten eine Notwendigkeit der Bestimmung in sich, der die Erfahrung niemals gleich kommt. Der Begriff der Ursache enthält eine Regel, nach der aus einem Zustande ein anderer notwendiger Weise folgt; aber die Erfahrung kann uns nur zeigen, daß oft, und, wenn es hoch kommt, gemeiniglich auf einen Zustand der Dinge ein anderer folge, und kann also weder strenge Allgemeinheit, noch Notwendigkeit verschaffen etc.
Daher scheinen Verstandesbegriffe viel mehr Bedeutung und Inhalt zu haben, als daß der bloße Erfahrungsgebrauch ihre ganze Bestimmung erschöpfte, und so baut sich der Verstand unvermerkt an das Haus der Erfahrung noch ein viel weitläuftigeres Nebengebäude an, welches er mit lauter Gedankenwesen anfüllt, ohne es einmal zu merken, daß er sich mit seinen sonst richtigen Begriffen über die Grenzen ihres Gebrauchs verstiegen habe.
Two important, and even indispensable, though very dry, investigations had therefore become indispensable in the Critique of Pure Reason,—viz., the two chapters "Vom Schematismus der reinen Verstandsbegriffe," and "Vom Grunde der Unterscheidung aller Verstandesbegriffe überhaupt in Phänomena und Noumena." In the former it is shown, that the senses furnish not the pure concepts of the understanding in concreto, but only the schedule for their use, and that the object conformable to it occurs only in experience (as the product of the understanding from materials of the sensibility). In the latter it is shown, that, although our pure concepts of the understanding and our principles are independent of experience, and despite of the apparently greater sphere of their use, still nothing whatever can be thought by them beyond the field of experience, because they can do nothing but merely determine the logical form of the judgment relatively to given intuitions. But as there is no intuition at all beyond the field of the sensibility, these pure concepts, as they cannot possibly be exhibited in concreto, are void of all meaning; consequently all these noumena, together with their complex, the intelligible world,{20} are nothing but representation of a problem, of which the object in itself is possible, but the solution, from the nature of our understanding, totally impossible. For our understanding is not a faculty of intuition, but of the connexion of given intuitions in experience. Experience must therefore contain all the objects for our concepts; but beyond it no concepts have any significance, as there is no intuition that might offer them a foundation.
=================================== {20} We speak of the "intelligible world," not (as the usual expression is) "intellectual world." For cognitions are intellectual through the understanding, and refer to our world of sense also; but objects, so far as they can be represented merely by the understanding, and to which none of our sensible intuitions can refer, are termed "intelligible." But as some possible intuition must correspond to every object, we would have to assume an understanding that intuites things immediately; but of such we have not the least notion, nor have we of the things of the understanding [Verstandeswesen], to which it should be applied. ===================================
Es waren also zwei wichtige, ja ganz unentbehrliche, obzwar äußerst trockene Untersuchungen nötig, welche Krit., Seite 137 etc. und 235 etc. angestellt worden, durch deren erstere gezeigt wurde, daß die Sinne nicht die reine Verstandesbegriffe in concreto, sondern nur das Schema zum Gebrauche desselben an die Hand geben, und der ihm gemäße Gegenstand nur in der Erfahrung (als dem Produkte des Verstandes aus Materialien der Sinnlichkeit) angetroffen werde. In der zweiten Untersuchung (Krit., S. 235) wird gezeigt: daß ungeachtet der Unabhängigkeit unsrer reinen Verstandesbegriffe und Grundsätze von Erfahrung, ja selbst ihrem scheinbarlich größeren Umfange des Gebrauchs, dennoch durch dieselbe, außer dem Felde der Erfahrung, gar nichts gedacht werden könne, weil sie nichts tun können, als bloß die logische Form des Urteils in Ansehung gegebener Anschauungen bestimmen; da es aber über das Feld der Sinnlichkeit hinaus ganz und gar keine Anschauung gibt, jenen reinen Begriffen es ganz und gar an Bedeutung fehle, indem sie durch kein Mittel in concreto können dargestellt werden, folglich alle solche Noumena, zusamt dem Inbegriff derselben, einer intelligibeln11 Welt, nichts als Vorstellungen einer Aufgabe sind, deren Gegenstand an sich wohl möglich, deren Auflösung aber, nach der Natur unseres Verstandes, gänzlich unmöglich ist, indem unser Verstand kein Vermögen der Anschauung, sondern bloß der Verknüpfung gegebener Anschauungen in einer Erfahrung ist, und daß diese daher alle Gegenstände vor unsere Begriffe enthalten müsse, außer ihr aber alle Begriffe, da ihnen keine Anschauung unterlegt werden kann, ohne Bedeutung sein werden.
The imagination may perhaps be forgiven for occasional vagaries, and for not keeping carefully within the limits of experience, since it gains life and vigor by such flights, and since it is always easier to moderate its boldness, than to stimulate its languor. But the understanding which ought to think can never be forgiven for indulging in vagaries; for we depend upon it alone for assistance to set bounds, when necessary, to the vagaries of the imagination.
But the understanding begins its aberrations very innocently and modestly. It first elucidates the elementary cognitions, which inhere in it prior to all experience, but yet must always have their application in experience. It gradually drops these limits, and what is there to prevent it, as it has quite freely derived its principles from itself? And then it proceeds first to newly-imagined powers in nature, then to beings, outside nature; in short to a world, for whose construction the materials cannot be wanting, because fertile fiction furnishes them abundantly, and though not confirmed, is never refuted, by experience. This is the reason that young thinkers are so partial to metaphysics of the truly dogmatical kind, and often sacrifice to it their time and their talents, which might be otherwise better employed.
But there is no use in trying to moderate these fruitless endeavors of pure reason by all manner of cautions as to the difficulties of solving questions so occult, by complaints of the limits of our reason, and by degrading our assertions into mere conjectures. For if their impossibility is not distinctly shown, and reason's cognition of its own essence does not become a true science, in which the field of its right use is distinguished, so to say, with mathematical certainty from that of its worthless and idle use, these fruitless efforts will never be abandoned for good.
Es kann der Einbildungskraft vielleicht verziehen werden, wenn sie bisweilen schwärmt, d.i. sich nicht behutsam innerhalb den Schranken der Erfahrung hält, denn wenigstens wird sie durch einen solchen freien Schwung belebt und gestärkt, und es wird immer leichter sein, ihre Kühnheit zu mäßigen, als ihrer Mattigkeit aufzuhelfen. Daß aber der Verstand, derdenkensoll, an dessen stattschwärmt, das kann ihm niemals verziehen werden; denn auf ihm beruht allein alle Hülfe, um der Schwärmerei der Einbildungskraft, wo es nötig ist, Grenzen zu setzen.
Er fängt es aber hiemit sehr unschuldig und sittsam an. Zuerst bringt er die Elementarerkenntnisse, die ihm vor aller Erfahrung beiwohnen, aber dennoch in der Erfahrung immer ihre Anwendung haben müssen, ins reine. Allmählich läßt er diese Schranken weg, und was sollte ihn auch daran hindern, da der Verstand ganz frei seine Grundsätze aus sich selbst genommen hat? und nun geht es zuerst auf neu erdachte Kräfte in der Natur, bald hernach auf Wesen außerhalb der Natur, mit einem Wort auf eine Welt, zu deren Einrichtung es uns an Bauzeug nicht fehlen kann, weil es durch fruchtbare Erdichtung reichlich herbeigeschafft, und durch Erfahrung zwar nicht bestätigt, aber auch niemals widerlegt wird. Das ist auch die Ursache, weswegen junge Denker Metaphysik in echter dogmatischer Manier so lieben, und ihr oft ihre Zeit und ihr sonst brauchbares Talent aufopfern.
Es kann aber gar nichts helfen, jene fruchtlose Versuche der reinen Vernunft durch allerlei Erinnerungen wegen der Schwierigkeit der Auflösung so tief verborgener Fragen, Klagen über die Schranken unserer Vernunft, und Herabsetzung der Behauptungen auf bloße Mutmaßungen, mäßigen zu wollen. Denn wenn dieUnmöglichkeitderselben nicht deutlich dargetan worden, und dieSelbsterkenntnisder Vernunft nicht wahre Wissenschaft wird, worin das Feld ihres richtigen von dem ihres nichtigen und fruchtlosen Gebrauchs, so zu sagen, mit geometrischer Gewißheit unterschieden wird, so werden jene eitle Bestrebungen niemals völlig abgestellt werden.
Buchempfehlung
Pascal, Blaise
Gedanken über die Religion
Als Blaise Pascal stirbt hinterlässt er rund 1000 ungeordnete Zettel, die er in den letzten Jahren vor seinem frühen Tode als Skizze für ein großes Werk zur Verteidigung des christlichen Glaubens angelegt hatte. In akribischer Feinarbeit wurde aus den nachgelassenen Fragmenten 1670 die sogenannte Port-Royal-Ausgabe, die 1710 erstmalig ins Deutsche übersetzt wurde. Diese Ausgabe folgt der Übersetzung von Karl Adolf Blech von 1840.
246 Seiten, 9.80 Euro
Im Buch blättern
Ansehen bei Amazon
Buchempfehlung
Romantische Geschichten. Elf Erzählungen
Romantik! Das ist auch aber eben nicht nur eine Epoche. Wenn wir heute etwas romantisch finden oder nennen, schwingt darin die Sehnsucht und die Leidenschaft der jungen Autoren, die seit dem Ausklang des 18. Jahrhundert ihre Gefühlswelt gegen die von der Aufklärung geforderte Vernunft verteidigt haben. So sind vor 200 Jahren wundervolle Erzählungen entstanden. Sie handeln von der Suche nach einer verlorengegangenen Welt des Wunderbaren, sind melancholisch oder mythisch oder märchenhaft, jedenfalls aber romantisch - damals wie heute. Michael Holzinger hat für diese preiswerte Leseausgabe elf der schönsten romantischen Erzählungen ausgewählt.
442 Seiten, 16.80 Euro
Ansehen bei Amazon
Online-Bibliothek
Wie ist Natur selbst möglich?
Page 13 of 27 · Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant , tr. Paul Carus · Project Gutenberg