Third Part — How Is Metaphysics in General Possible?
HOW IS METAPHYSICS IN GENERAL POSSIBLE?
§40Pure mathematics and pure science of nature had no occasion for such a deduction, as we have made of both, for their own safety and certainty. For the former rests upon its own evidence; and the latter (though sprung from pure sources of the understanding) upon experience and its thorough confirmation. Physics cannot altogether refuse and dispense with the testimony of the latter; because with all its certainty, it can never, as philosophy, rival mathematics. Both sciences therefore stood in need of this inquiry, not for themselves, but for the sake of another science, metaphysics.
Metaphysics has to do not only with concepts of nature, which always find their application in experience, but also with pure rational concepts, which never can be given in any possible experience. Consequently the objective reality of these concepts (viz., that they are not mere chimeras), and the truth or falsity of metaphysical assertions, cannot be discovered or confirmed by any experience. This part of metaphysics however is precisely what constitutes its essential end, to which the rest is only a means, and thus this science is in need of such a deduction for its own sake. The third question now proposed relates therefore as it were to the root and essential difference of metaphysics, i.e., the occupation of Reason with itself, and the supposed knowledge of objects arising immediately from this incubation of its own concepts, without requiring, or indeed being able to reach that knowledge through, experience.{28}
=================================== {28} If we can say, that a science is actual at least in the ideas of all men, as soon as it appears that the problems which lead to it are proposed to everybody by the nature of human reason, and that therefore many (though faulty) endeavors are unavoidably made in its behalf, then we are bound to say that metaphysics is subjectively (and indeed necessarily) actual, and therefore we justly ask, how is it (objectively) possible. ===================================
Without solving this problem reason never is justified. The empirical use to which reason limits the pure understanding, does not fully satisfy the proper destination of the latter. Every single experience is only a part of the whole sphere of its domain, but the absolute totality of all possible experience is itself not experience. Yet it is a necessary [concrete] problem for reason, the mere representation of which requires concepts quite different from the categories, whose use is only immanent, or refers to experience, so far as it can be given. Whereas the concepts of reason aim at the completeness, i.e., the collective unity of all possible experience, and thereby transcend every given experience. Thus they become transcendent.
As the understanding stands in need of categories for experience, reason contains in itself the source of ideas, by which I mean necessary concepts, whose object cannot be given in any experience. The latter are inherent in the nature of reason, as the former are in that of the understanding. While the former carry with them an illusion likely to mislead, the illusion of the latter is inevitable, though it certainly can be kept from misleading us.
Since all illusion consists in holding the subjective ground of our judgments to be objective, a self-knowledge of pure reason in its transcendent (exaggerated) use is the sole preservative from the aberrations into which reason falls when it mistakes its destination, and refers that to the object transcendently, which only regards its own subject and its guidance in all immanent use.
§41The distinction of ideas, that is, of pure concepts of reason, from categories, or pure concepts of the understanding, as cognitions of a quite distinct species, origin and use, is so important a point in founding a science which is to contain the system of all these a priori cognitions, that without this distinction metaphysics is absolutely impossible, or is at best a random, bungling attempt to build a castle in the air without a knowledge of the materials or of their fitness for any purpose. Had the Critique of Pure Reason done nothing but first point out this distinction, it had thereby contributed more to clear up our conception of, and to guide our inquiry in, the field of metaphysics, than all the vain efforts which have hitherto been made to satisfy the transcendent problems of pure reason, without ever surmising that we were in quite another field than that of the understanding, and hence classing concepts of the understanding and those of reason together, as if they were of the same kind.
§42All pure cognitions of the understanding have this feature, that their concepts present themselves in experience, and their principles can be confirmed by it; whereas the transcendent cognitions of reason cannot, either as ideas, appear in experience, or as propositions ever be confirmed or refuted by it. Hence whatever errors may slip in unawares, can only be discovered by pure reason itself—a discovery of much difficulty, because this very reason naturally becomes dialectical by means of its ideas, and this unavoidable illusion cannot be limited by any objective and dogmatical researches into things, but by a subjective investigation of reason itself as a source of ideas.
§43In the Critique of Pure Reason it was always my greatest care to endeavor not only carefully to distinguish the several species of cognition, but to derive concepts belonging to each one of them from their common source. I did this in order that by knowing whence they originated, I might determine their use with safety, and also have the unanticipated but invaluable advantage of knowing the completeness of my enumeration, classification and specification of concepts a priori, and therefore according to principles. Without this, metaphysics is mere rhapsody, in which no one knows whether he has enough, or whether and where something is still wanting. We can indeed have this advantage only in pure philosophy, but of this philosophy it constitutes the very essence.
As I had found the origin of the categories in the four logical functions of all the judgments of the understanding, it was quite natural to seek the origin of the ideas in the three functions of the syllogisms of reason. For as soon as these pure concepts of reason (the transcendental ideas) are given, they could hardly, except they be held innate, be found anywhere else, than in the same activity of reason, which, so far as it regards mere form, constitutes the logical element of the syllogisms of reason; but, so far as it represents judgments of the understanding with respect to the one or to the other form a priori, constitutes transcendental concepts of pure reason.
The formal distinction of syllogisms renders their division into categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive necessary. The concepts of reason founded on them contained therefore, first, the idea of the complete subject (the substantial); secondly, the idea of the complete series of conditions; thirdly, the determination of all concepts in the idea of a complete complex of that which is possible.{29} The first idea is psychological, the second cosmological, the third theological, and, as all three give occasion to Dialectics, yet each in its own way, the division of the whole Dialects of pure reason into its Paralogism, its Antinomy, and its Ideal, was arranged accordingly. Through this deduction we may feel assured that all the claims of pure reason are completely represented, and that none can be wanting; because the faculty of reason itself, whence they all take their origin, is thereby completely surveyed.
=================================== {29} In disjunctive judgments we consider all possibility as divided in respect to a particular concept. By the ontological principle of the universal determination of a thing in general, I understand the principle that either the one or the other of all possible contradictory predicates must be assigned to any object. This is at the same time the principle of all disjunctive judgments, constituting the foundation of our conception of possibility, and in it the possibility of every object in general is considered as determined. This may serve as a slight explanation of the above proposition: that the activity of reason in disjunctive syllogisms is formally the same as that by which it fashions the idea of a universal conception of all reality, containing in itself that which is positive in all contradictory predicates. ===================================
§44In these general considerations it is also remarkable that the ideas of reason are unlike the categories, of no service to the use of our understanding in experience, but quite dispensable, and become even an impediment to the maxims of a rational cognition of nature. Yet in another aspect still to be determined they are necessary. Whether the soul is or is not a simple substance, is of no consequence to us in the explanation of its phenomena. For we cannot render the notion of a simple being intelligible by any possible experience that is sensuous or concrete. The notion is therefore quite void as regards all hoped-for insight into the cause of phenomena, and cannot at all serve as a principle of the explanation of that which internal or external experience supplies. So the cosmological ideas of the beginning of the world or of its eternity (a parte ante) cannot be of any greater service to us for the explanation of any event in the world itself. And finally we must, according to a right maxim of the philosophy of nature, refrain from all explanations of the design of nature, drawn from the will of a Supreme Being; because this would not be natural philosophy, but an acknowledgment that we have come to the end of it. The use of these ideas, therefore, is quite different from that of those categories by which (and by the principles built upon which) experience itself first becomes possible. But our laborious analytics of the understanding would be superfluous if we had nothing else in view than the mere cognition of nature as it can be given in experience; for reason does its work, both in mathematics and in the science of nature, quite safely and well without any of this subtle deduction. Therefore our Critique of the Understanding combines with the ideas of pure reason for a purpose which lies beyond the empirical use of the understanding; but this we have above declared to be in this aspect totally inadmissible, and without any object or meaning. Yet there must be a harmony between that of the nature of reason and that of the understanding, and the former must contribute to the perfection of the latter, and cannot possibly upset it.
The solution of this question is as follows: Pure reason does not in its ideas point to particular objects, which lie beyond the field of experience, but only requires completeness of the use of the understanding in the system of experience. But this completeness can be a completeness of principles only, not of intuitions (i.e., concrete atsights or Anschauungen) and of objects. In order however to represent the ideas definitely, reason conceives them after the fashion of the cognition of an object. The cognition is as far as these rules are concerned completely determined, but the object is only an idea invented for the purpose of bringing the cognition of the understanding as near as possible to the completeness represented by that idea.
Prefatory Remark to the Dialectics of Pure Reason.
Third Part — How Is Metaphysics in General Possible?
HOW IS METAPHYSICS IN GENERAL POSSIBLE?
Pure mathematics and pure science of nature had no occasion for such a deduction, as we have made of both, for their own safety and certainty. For the former rests upon its own evidence; and the latter (though sprung from pure sources of the understanding) upon experience and its thorough confirmation. Physics cannot altogether refuse and dispense with the testimony of the latter; because with all its certainty, it can never, as philosophy, rival mathematics. Both sciences therefore stood in need of this inquiry, not for themselves, but for the sake of another science, metaphysics.
Metaphysics has to do not only with concepts of nature, which always find their application in experience, but also with pure rational concepts, which never can be given in any possible experience. Consequently the objective reality of these concepts (viz., that they are not mere chimeras), and the truth or falsity of metaphysical assertions, cannot be discovered or confirmed by any experience. This part of metaphysics however is precisely what constitutes its essential end, to which the rest is only a means, and thus this science is in need of such a deduction for its own sake. The third question now proposed relates therefore as it were to the root and essential difference of metaphysics, i.e., the occupation of Reason with itself, and the supposed knowledge of objects arising immediately from this incubation of its own concepts, without requiring, or indeed being able to reach that knowledge through, experience.{28}
=================================== {28} If we can say, that a science is actual at least in the ideas of all men, as soon as it appears that the problems which lead to it are proposed to everybody by the nature of human reason, and that therefore many (though faulty) endeavors are unavoidably made in its behalf, then we are bound to say that metaphysics is subjectively (and indeed necessarily) actual, and therefore we justly ask, how is it (objectively) possible. ===================================
Without solving this problem reason never is justified. The empirical use to which reason limits the pure understanding, does not fully satisfy the proper destination of the latter. Every single experience is only a part of the whole sphere of its domain, but the absolute totality of all possible experience is itself not experience. Yet it is a necessary [concrete] problem for reason, the mere representation of which requires concepts quite different from the categories, whose use is only immanent, or refers to experience, so far as it can be given. Whereas the concepts of reason aim at the completeness, i.e., the collective unity of all possible experience, and thereby transcend every given experience. Thus they become transcendent.
As the understanding stands in need of categories for experience, reason contains in itself the source of ideas, by which I mean necessary concepts, whose object cannot be given in any experience. The latter are inherent in the nature of reason, as the former are in that of the understanding. While the former carry with them an illusion likely to mislead, the illusion of the latter is inevitable, though it certainly can be kept from misleading us.
Since all illusion consists in holding the subjective ground of our judgments to be objective, a self-knowledge of pure reason in its transcendent (exaggerated) use is the sole preservative from the aberrations into which reason falls when it mistakes its destination, and refers that to the object transcendently, which only regards its own subject and its guidance in all immanent use.
Reine Mathematik und reine Naturwissenschaft hättenzum Behuf ihrer eigenen Sicherheitund Gewißheit keiner dergleichen Deduktion bedurft, als wir bisher von beiden zu Stande gebracht haben; denn die erstere stützt sich auf ihre eigene Evidenz; die zweite aber, obgleich aus reinen Quellen des Verstandes entsprungen, dennoch auf Erfahrung und deren durchgängige Bestätigung, welcher letztern Zeugnis sie darum nicht gänzlich ausschlagen und entbehren kann, weil sie mit aller ihrer Gewißheit dennoch, als Philosophie, es der Mathematik niemals gleich tun kann. Beide Wissenschaften hatten also die gedachte Untersuchung nicht vor sich, sondern vor eine andere Wissenschaft, nämlich Metaphysik, nötig.
Metaphysik hat es, außer mit Naturbegriffen, die in der Erfahrung jederzeit ihre Anwendung finden, noch mit reinen Vernunftbegriffen zu tun, die niemals in irgend einer nur immer möglichen Erfahrung gegeben werden, mithin mit Begriffen, deren objektive Realität (daß sie nicht bloße Hirngespinste sind), und mit Behauptungen, deren Wahrheit oder Falschheit durch keine Erfahrung bestätigt, oder aufgedeckt werden kann, und dieser Teil der Metaphysik ist überdem gerade derjenige, welcher den wesentlichen Zweck derselben, wozu alles andre nur Mittel ist, ausmacht, und so bedarf diese Wissenschaft einer solchen Deduktionum ihrer selbst willen. Die uns jetzt vorgelegte dritte Frage betrifft also gleichsam den Kern und das Eigentümliche der Metaphysik, nämlich die Beschäftigung der Vernunft bloß mit sich selbst, und, indem sie über ihre eigene Begriffe brütet, die unmittelbar daraus vermeintlich entspringende Bekanntschaft mit Objekten, ohne dazu der Vermittelung der Erfahrung nötig zu haben, noch überhaupt durch dieselbe dazu gelangen zu können.16
Ohne Auflösung dieser Frage tut sich Vernunft niemals selbst gnug. Der Erfahrungsgebrauch, auf welchen die Vernunft den reinen Verstand einschränkt, erfüllt nicht ihre eigene ganze Bestimmung. Jede einzelne Erfahrung ist nur ein Teil von der ganzen Sphäre ihres Gebietes, dasabsolute Ganze aller möglichen Erfahrungist aber selbst keine Erfahrung, und dennoch ein notwendiges Problem vor die Vernunft, zu dessen bloßer Vorstellung sie ganz anderer Begriffe nötig hat, als jener reinen Verstandesbegriffe, deren Gebrauch nurimmanentist, d.i. auf Erfahrung geht, so weit sie gegeben werden kann, indessen daß Vernunftbegriffe auf die Vollständigkeit, d.i. die kollektive Einheit der ganzen möglichen Erfahrung und dadurch über jede gegebne Erfahrung hinausgehen, undtranszendentwerden.
So wie also der Verstand der Kategorien zur Erfahrung bedurfte, so enthält die Vernunft in sich den Grund zu Ideen, worunter ich notwendige Begriffe verstehe, deren Gegenstand gleichwohl in keiner Erfahrung gegeben werdenkann. Die letztern sind eben sowohl in der Natur der Vernunft, als die erstere in der Natur des Verstandes gelegen, und, wenn jene einen Schein bei sich führen, der leicht verleiten kann, so ist dieser Schein unvermeidlich, obzwar »daß er nicht verführe« gar wohl verhütet werden kann.
Da aller Schein darin besteht, daß der subjektive Grund des Urteils vor objektiv gehalten wird, so wird ein Selbsterkenntnis der reinen Vernunft, in ihrem transzendenten (überschwenglichen) Gebrauch das einzige Verwahrungsmittel gegen die Verirrungen sein, in welche die Vernunft gerät, wenn sie ihre Bestimmung mißdeutet, und dasjenige transzendenter Weise aufs Objekt an sich selbst bezieht, was nur ihr eigenes Subjekt und die Leitung desselben in allem immanenten Gebrauche angeht.
The distinction of ideas, that is, of pure concepts of reason, from categories, or pure concepts of the understanding, as cognitions of a quite distinct species, origin and use, is so important a point in founding a science which is to contain the system of all these a priori cognitions, that without this distinction metaphysics is absolutely impossible, or is at best a random, bungling attempt to build a castle in the air without a knowledge of the materials or of their fitness for any purpose. Had the Critique of Pure Reason done nothing but first point out this distinction, it had thereby contributed more to clear up our conception of, and to guide our inquiry in, the field of metaphysics, than all the vain efforts which have hitherto been made to satisfy the transcendent problems of pure reason, without ever surmising that we were in quite another field than that of the understanding, and hence classing concepts of the understanding and those of reason together, as if they were of the same kind.
Die Unterscheidung derIdeen, d.i. der reinen Vernunftbegriffe, von den Kategorien, oder reinen Verstandesbegriffen, als Erkenntnissen von ganz verschiedener Art, Ursprung und Gebrauch, ist ein so wichtiges Stück zur Grundlegung einer Wissenschaft, welche das System aller dieser Erkenntnisse a priori enthalten soll, daß, ohne eine solche Absonderung Metaphysik schlechterdings unmöglich oder höchstens ein regelloser stümperhafter Versuch ist, ohne Kenntnis der Materialien, womit man sich beschäftigt, und ihrer Tauglichkeit zu dieser oder jener Absicht ein Kartengebäude zusammenzuflicken. Wenn Kritik d. r. V. auch nur das allein geleistet hätte, diesen Unterschied zuerst vor Augen zu legen, so hätte sie dadurch schon mehr zur Aufklärung unseres Begriffs und der Leitung der Nachforschung im Felde der Metaphysik beigetragen, als alle fruchtlose Bemühungen, den transzendenten Aufgaben der r. V. ein Gnüge zu tun, die man von je her unternommen hat, ohne jemals zu wähnen, daß man sich in einem ganz andern Felde befände, als dem des Verstandes, und daher Verstandes- und Vernunftbegriffe, gleich als ob sie von einerlei Art wären, in einem Striche hernannte.
All pure cognitions of the understanding have this feature, that their concepts present themselves in experience, and their principles can be confirmed by it; whereas the transcendent cognitions of reason cannot, either as ideas, appear in experience, or as propositions ever be confirmed or refuted by it. Hence whatever errors may slip in unawares, can only be discovered by pure reason itself—a discovery of much difficulty, because this very reason naturally becomes dialectical by means of its ideas, and this unavoidable illusion cannot be limited by any objective and dogmatical researches into things, but by a subjective investigation of reason itself as a source of ideas.
Alle reine Verstandeserkenntnisse haben das an sich, daß sich ihre Begriffe in der Erfahrung geben, und ihre Grundsätze durch Erfahrung bestätigen lassen; dagegen die transzendenten Vernunfterkenntnisse sich, weder, was ihreIdeenbetrifft, in der Erfahrung geben, noch ihreSätzejemals durch Erfahrung bestätigen, noch widerlegen lassen; daher der dabei vielleicht einschleichende Irrtum durch nichts anders, als reine Vernunft selbst, aufgedeckt werden kann, welches aber sehr schwer ist, weil eben diese Vernunft vermittelst ihrer Ideen natürlicher Weise dialektisch wird, und dieser unvermeidliche Schein durch keine objektive und dogmatische Untersuchungen der Sachen, sondern bloß durch subjektive, der Vernunft selbst, als einem Quell der Ideen, in Schranken gehalten werden kann.
In the Critique of Pure Reason it was always my greatest care to endeavor not only carefully to distinguish the several species of cognition, but to derive concepts belonging to each one of them from their common source. I did this in order that by knowing whence they originated, I might determine their use with safety, and also have the unanticipated but invaluable advantage of knowing the completeness of my enumeration, classification and specification of concepts a priori, and therefore according to principles. Without this, metaphysics is mere rhapsody, in which no one knows whether he has enough, or whether and where something is still wanting. We can indeed have this advantage only in pure philosophy, but of this philosophy it constitutes the very essence.
As I had found the origin of the categories in the four logical functions of all the judgments of the understanding, it was quite natural to seek the origin of the ideas in the three functions of the syllogisms of reason. For as soon as these pure concepts of reason (the transcendental ideas) are given, they could hardly, except they be held innate, be found anywhere else, than in the same activity of reason, which, so far as it regards mere form, constitutes the logical element of the syllogisms of reason; but, so far as it represents judgments of the understanding with respect to the one or to the other form a priori, constitutes transcendental concepts of pure reason.
The formal distinction of syllogisms renders their division into categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive necessary. The concepts of reason founded on them contained therefore, first, the idea of the complete subject (the substantial); secondly, the idea of the complete series of conditions; thirdly, the determination of all concepts in the idea of a complete complex of that which is possible.{29} The first idea is psychological, the second cosmological, the third theological, and, as all three give occasion to Dialectics, yet each in its own way, the division of the whole Dialects of pure reason into its Paralogism, its Antinomy, and its Ideal, was arranged accordingly. Through this deduction we may feel assured that all the claims of pure reason are completely represented, and that none can be wanting; because the faculty of reason itself, whence they all take their origin, is thereby completely surveyed.
=================================== {29} In disjunctive judgments we consider all possibility as divided in respect to a particular concept. By the ontological principle of the universal determination of a thing in general, I understand the principle that either the one or the other of all possible contradictory predicates must be assigned to any object. This is at the same time the principle of all disjunctive judgments, constituting the foundation of our conception of possibility, and in it the possibility of every object in general is considered as determined. This may serve as a slight explanation of the above proposition: that the activity of reason in disjunctive syllogisms is formally the same as that by which it fashions the idea of a universal conception of all reality, containing in itself that which is positive in all contradictory predicates. ===================================
Es ist jederzeit in der Kritik mein größtes Augenmerk gewesen, wie ich nicht allein die Erkenntnisarten sorgfältig unterscheiden, sondern auch allein zu jeder derselben gehörige Begriffe aus ihrem gemeinschaftlichen Quell ableiten könnte, damit ich nicht allein dadurch, daß ich unterrichtet wäre, woher sie abstammen, ihren Gebrauch mit Sicherheit bestimmen könnte, sondern auch den noch nie vermuteten, aber unschätzbaren Vorteil hätte, die Vollständigkeit in der Aufzählung, Klassifizierung und Spezifizierung der Begriffe a priori, mithin nach Prinzipien zu erkennen. Ohne dieses ist in der Metaphysik alles lauter Rhapsodie, wo man niemals weiß, ob dessen, was man besitzt, gnug ist, oder ob, und wo, noch etwas fehlen möge. Freilich kann man diesen Vorteil auch nur in der reinen Philosophie haben, von dieser aber macht derselbe auch das Wesen aus.
Da ich den Ursprung der Kategorien in den vier logischen Funktionen aller Urteile des Verstandes gefunden hatte, so war es ganz natürlich, den Ursprung der Ideen in den drei Funktionen der Vernunftschlüsse zu suchen; denn wenn einmal solche reine Vernunftbegriffe (transz. Ideen) gegeben sind, so könnten sie, wenn man sie nicht etwa vorangeboren halten will, wohl nirgends anders, als in derselben Vernunfthandlung angetroffen werden, welche, so fern sie bloß die Form betrifft, das Logische der Vernunftschlüsse, so fern sie aber die Verstandesurteile in Ansehung einer oder der andern Form a priori als bestimmt vorstellt, transzendentale Begriffe der reinen Vernunft ausmacht.
Der formale Unterschied der Vernunftschlüsse macht die Einteilung derselben in kategorische, hypothetische und disjunktive notwendig. Die darauf gegründete Vernunftbegriffe enthalten also erstlich die Idee des vollständigen Subjekts (Substantiale), zweitens die Idee der vollständigen Reihe der Bedingungen, drittens die Bestimmung aller Begriffe in der Idee eines vollständigen Inbegriffs des Möglichen17. Die erste Idee war physiologisch, die zweite kosmologisch, die dritte theologisch, und, da alle drei zu einer Dialektik Anlaß geben, doch jede auf ihre eigene Art, so gründete sich darauf die Einteilung der ganzen Dialektik der reinen Vernunft: in den Paralogismus, die Antinomie, und endlich das Ideal derselben, durch welche Ableitung man völlig sicher gestellt wird, daß alle Ansprüche der reinen Vernunft hier ganz vollständig vorgestellt sind, und kein einziger fehlen kann, weil das Vernunftvermögen selbst, als woraus sie allen ihren Ursprung nehmen, dadurch gänzlich ausgemessen wird.
In these general considerations it is also remarkable that the ideas of reason are unlike the categories, of no service to the use of our understanding in experience, but quite dispensable, and become even an impediment to the maxims of a rational cognition of nature. Yet in another aspect still to be determined they are necessary. Whether the soul is or is not a simple substance, is of no consequence to us in the explanation of its phenomena. For we cannot render the notion of a simple being intelligible by any possible experience that is sensuous or concrete. The notion is therefore quite void as regards all hoped-for insight into the cause of phenomena, and cannot at all serve as a principle of the explanation of that which internal or external experience supplies. So the cosmological ideas of the beginning of the world or of its eternity (a parte ante) cannot be of any greater service to us for the explanation of any event in the world itself. And finally we must, according to a right maxim of the philosophy of nature, refrain from all explanations of the design of nature, drawn from the will of a Supreme Being; because this would not be natural philosophy, but an acknowledgment that we have come to the end of it. The use of these ideas, therefore, is quite different from that of those categories by which (and by the principles built upon which) experience itself first becomes possible. But our laborious analytics of the understanding would be superfluous if we had nothing else in view than the mere cognition of nature as it can be given in experience; for reason does its work, both in mathematics and in the science of nature, quite safely and well without any of this subtle deduction. Therefore our Critique of the Understanding combines with the ideas of pure reason for a purpose which lies beyond the empirical use of the understanding; but this we have above declared to be in this aspect totally inadmissible, and without any object or meaning. Yet there must be a harmony between that of the nature of reason and that of the understanding, and the former must contribute to the perfection of the latter, and cannot possibly upset it.
The solution of this question is as follows: Pure reason does not in its ideas point to particular objects, which lie beyond the field of experience, but only requires completeness of the use of the understanding in the system of experience. But this completeness can be a completeness of principles only, not of intuitions (i.e., concrete atsights or Anschauungen) and of objects. In order however to represent the ideas definitely, reason conceives them after the fashion of the cognition of an object. The cognition is as far as these rules are concerned completely determined, but the object is only an idea invented for the purpose of bringing the cognition of the understanding as near as possible to the completeness represented by that idea.
Prefatory Remark to the Dialectics of Pure Reason.
Es ist bei dieser Betrachtung im allgemeinen noch merkwürdig : daß die Vernunftidee nicht etwa, so wie die Kategorien, uns zum Gebrauche des Verstandes in Ansehung der Erfahrung irgend etwas nutzen, sondern in Ansehung desselben völlig entbehrlich, ja wohl gar den Maximen des Vernunfterkenntnisses der Natur entgegen und hinderlich, gleichwohl aber doch in anderer noch zu bestimmender Absicht notwendig sein. Ob die Seele eine einfache Substanz sei, oder nicht, das kann uns zur Erklärung der Erscheinungen derselben ganz gleichgültig sein; denn wir können den Begriff eines einfachen Wesens durch keine mögliche Erfahrung sinnlich, mithin in concreto verständlich machen, und so ist er, in Ansehung aller verhofften Einsicht in die Ursache der Erscheinungen, ganz leer, und kann zu keinem Prinzip der Erklärung dessen, was innere oder äußere Erfahrung an die Hand gibt, dienen. Eben so wenig können uns die kosmologischen Ideen vom Weltanfange, oder der Weltewigkeit (a parte ante) dazu nutzen, um irgend eine Begebenheit in der Welt selbst daraus zu erklären. Endlich müssen wir, nach einer richtigen Maxime der Naturphilosophie, uns aller Erklärung der Natureinrichtung, die aus dem Willen eines höchsten Wesens gezogen worden, enthalten, weil dieses nicht mehr Naturphilosophie ist, sondern ein Geständnis, daß es damit bei uns zu Ende gehe. Es haben also diese Ideen eine ganz andere Bestimmung ihres Gebrauchs, als jene Kategorien, durch die, und die darauf gebauten Grundsätze, Erfahrung selbst allererst möglich ward. Indessen würde doch unsre mühsame Analytik des Verstandes, wenn unsre Absicht auf nichts anders als bloße Naturerkenntnis, so wie sie in der Erfahrung gegeben werden kann, gerichtet wäre, auch ganz überflüssig sein; denn Vernunft verrichtet ihr Geschäfte, so wohl in der Mathematik als Naturwissenschaft, auch ohne alle diese subtile Deduktion ganz sicher und gut: also vereinigt sich unsre Kritik des Verstandes mit den Ideen der reinen Vernunft zu einer Absicht, welche über den Erfahrungsgebrauch des Verstandes hinausgesetzt ist, von welchem wir doch oben gesagt haben, daß er in diesem Betracht gänzlich unmöglich, und ohne Gegenstand oder Bedeutung sei. Es muß aber dennoch zwischen dem, was zur Natur der Vernunft und des Verstandes gehört, Einstimmung sein, und jene muß zur Vollkommenheit der letztern beitragen, und kann sie unmöglich verwirren.
Die Auflösung dieser Frage ist folgende: Die reine Vernunft hat unter ihren Ideen nicht besondere Gegenstände, die über das Feld der Erfahrung hinauslägen, zur Absicht, sondern fodert nur Vollständigkeit des Verstandesgebrauchs im Zusammenhange der Erfahrung. Diese Vollständigkeit aber kann nur eine Vollständigkeit der Prinzipien, aber nicht der Anschauungen und Gegenstände sein. Gleichwohl, um sich jene bestimmt vorzustellen, denkt sie sich solche, als die Erkenntnis eines Objekts, dessen Erkenntnis in Ansehung jener Regeln vollständig bestimmt ist, welches Objekt aber nur eine Idee ist, um die Verstandeserkenntnis der Vollständigkeit, die jene Idee bezeichnet, so nahe wie möglich zu bringen.
Buchempfehlung
Holz, Arno
Phantasus / Dafnis
Der lyrische Zyklus um den Sohn des Schlafes und seine Verwandlungskünste, die dem Menschen die Träume geben, ist eine Allegorie auf das Schaffen des Dichters.
178 Seiten, 9.80 Euro
Im Buch blättern
Ansehen bei Amazon
Buchempfehlung
Geschichten aus dem Sturm und Drang II. Sechs weitere Erzählungen
Zwischen 1765 und 1785 geht ein Ruck durch die deutsche Literatur. Sehr junge Autoren lehnen sich auf gegen den belehrenden Charakter der - die damalige Geisteskultur beherrschenden - Aufklärung. Mit Fantasie und Gemütskraft stürmen und drängen sie gegen die Moralvorstellungen des Feudalsystems, setzen Gefühl vor Verstand und fordern die Selbstständigkeit des Originalgenies. Für den zweiten Band hat Michael Holzinger sechs weitere bewegende Erzählungen des Sturm und Drang ausgewählt.
424 Seiten, 19.80 Euro
Ansehen bei Amazon
Online-Bibliothek
Page 16 of 27 · Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant , tr. Paul Carus · Project Gutenberg