§45We have above shown in §§ 33 and 34 that the purity of the categories from all admixture of sensuous determinations may mislead reason into extending their use, quite beyond all experience, to things in themselves; though as these categories themselves find no intuition which can give them meaning or sense in concreto, they, as mere logical functions, can represent a thing in general, but not give by themselves alone a determinate concept of anything. Such hyperbolical objects are distinguised by the appellation of Noümena, or pure beings of the understanding (or better, beings of thought), such as, for example, "substance," but conceived without permanence in time, or "cause," but not acting in time, etc. Here predicates, that only serve to make the conformity-to-law of experience possible, are applied to these concepts, and yet they are deprived of all the conditions of intuition, on which alone experience is possible, and so these concepts lose all significance.
There is no danger, however, of the understanding spontaneously making an excursion so very wantonly beyond its own bounds into the field of the mere creatures of thought, without being impelled by foreign laws. But when reason, which cannot be fully satisfied with any empirical use of the rules of the understanding, as being always conditioned, requires a completion of this chain of conditions, then the understanding is forced out of its sphere. And then it partly represents objects of experience in a series so extended that no experience can grasp, partly even (with a view to complete the series) it seeks entirely beyond it noumena, to which it can attach that chain, and so, having at last escaped from the conditions of experience, make its attitude as it were final. These are then the transcendental ideas, which, though according to the true but hidden ends of the natural determination of our reason, they may aim not at extravagant concepts, but at an unbounded extension of their empirical use, yet seduce the understanding by an unavoidable illusion to a transcendent use, which, though deceitful, cannot be restrained within the bounds of experience by any resolution, but only by scientific instruction and with much difficulty.
I. The Psychological Idea.{30}
=================================== {30} See Critique of Pure Reason, Von den Paralogismen der reinen Vernunft. ===================================
§46People have long since observed, that in all substances the proper subject, that which remains after all the accidents (as predicates) are abstracted, consequently that which forms the substance of things remains unknown, and various complaints have been made concerning these limits to our knowledge. But it will be well to consider that the human understanding is not to be blamed for its inability to know the substance of things, that is, to determine it by itself, but rather for requiring to cognise it which is a mere idea definitely as though it were a given object. Pure reason requires us to seek for every predicate of a thing its proper subject, and for this subject, which is itself necessarily nothing but a predicate, its subject, and so on indefinitely (or as far as we can reach). But hence it follows, that we must not hold anything, at which we can arrive, to be an ultimate subject, and that substance itself never can be thought by our understanding, however deep we may penetrate, even if all nature were unveiled to us. For the specific nature of our understanding consists in thinking everything discursively, that is, representing it by concepts, and so by mere predicates, to which therefore the absolute subject must always be wanting. Hence all the real properties, by which we cognise bodies, are mere accidents, not excepting impenetrability, which we can only represent to ourselves as the effect of a power of which the subject is unknown to us.
Now we appear to have this substance in the consciousness of ourselves (in the thinking subject), and indeed in an immediate intuition; for all the predicates of an internal sense refer to the ego, as a subject, and I cannot conceive myself as the predicate of any other subject. Hence completeness in the reference of the given concepts as predicates to a subject—not merely an idea, but an object—that is, the absolute subject itself, seems to be given in experience. But this expectation is disappointed. For the ego is not a concept,{31} but only the indication of the object of the internal sense, so far as we cognise it by no further predicate. Consequently it cannot be in itself a predicate of any other thing; but just as little can it be a determinate concept of an absolute subject, but is, as in all other cases, only the reference of the internal phenomena to their unknown subject. Yet this idea (which serves very well, as a regulative principle, totally to destroy all materialistic explanations of the internal phenomena of the soul) occasions by a very natural misunderstanding a very specious argument, which, from this supposed cognition of the substance of our thinking being, infers its nature, so far as the knowledge of it falls quite without the complex of experience.
=================================== {31} Were the representation of the apperception (the Ego) a concept, by which anything could be thought, it could be used as a predicate of other things or contain predicates in itself. But it is nothing more than the feeling of an existence without the least definite conception and is only the representation of that to which all thinking stands in relation (relatione accidentis). ===================================
§47But though we may call this thinking self (the soul) substance, as being the ultimate subject of thinking which cannot be further represented as the predicate of another thing; it remains quite empty and without significance, if permanence—the quality which renders the concept of substances in experience fruitful—cannot be proved of it.
But permanence can never be proved of the concept of a substance, as a thing in itself, but for the purposes of experience only. This is sufficiently shown by the first Analogy of Experience,{32} and who ever will not yield to this proof may try for himself whether he can succeed in proving, from the concept of a subject which does not exist itself as the predicate of another thing, that its existence is thoroughly permanent, and that it cannot either in itself or by any natural cause originate or be annihilated. These synthetical a priori propositions can never be proved in themselves, but only in reference to things as objects of possible experience.
=================================== {32} Cf. Critique, Von den Analogien der Erfahrung. ===================================
§48If therefore from the concept of the soul as a substance, we would infer its permanence, this can hold good as regards possible experience only, not [of the soul] as a thing in itself and beyond all possible experience. But life is the subjective condition of all our possible experience, consequently we can only infer the permanence of the soul in life; for the death of man is the end of all experience which concerns the soul as an object of experience, except the contrary be proved, which is the very question in hand. The permanence of the soul can therefore only be proved (and no one cares for that) during the life of man, but not, as we desire to do, after death; and for this general reason, that the concept of substance, so far as it is to be considered necessarily combined with the concept of permanence, can be so combined only according to the principles of possible experience, and therefore for the purposes of experience only.{33}
=================================== {33} It is indeed very remarkable how carelessly metaphysicians have always passed over the principle of the permanence of substances without ever attempting a proof of it; doubtless because they found themselves abandoned by all proofs as soon as they began to deal with the concept of substance. Common sense, which felt distinctly that without this presupposition do union of perceptions in experience is possible, supplied the want by a postulate. From experience itself it never could derive such a principle, partly because substances cannot be so traced in all their alterations and dissolutions, that the matter can always be found undiminished, partly because the principle contains necessity, which is always the sign of an a priori principle. People then boldly applied this postulate to the concept of soul as a substance, and concluded a necessary continuance of the soul after the death of man (especially as the simplicity of this substance, which is inferred from the indivisibility of consciousness, secured it from destruction by dissolution). Had they found the genuine source of this principle—a discovery which requires deeper researches than they were ever inclined to make—they would have seen, that the law of the permanence of substances has place for the purposes of experience only, and hence can hold good of things so far as they are to be cognised and conjoined with others in experience, but never independently of all possible experience, and consequently cannot hold good of the soul after death. ===================================
We have above shown in §§ 33 and 34 that the purity of the categories from all admixture of sensuous determinations may mislead reason into extending their use, quite beyond all experience, to things in themselves; though as these categories themselves find no intuition which can give them meaning or sense in concreto, they, as mere logical functions, can represent a thing in general, but not give by themselves alone a determinate concept of anything. Such hyperbolical objects are distinguised by the appellation of Noümena, or pure beings of the understanding (or better, beings of thought), such as, for example, "substance," but conceived without permanence in time, or "cause," but not acting in time, etc. Here predicates, that only serve to make the conformity-to-law of experience possible, are applied to these concepts, and yet they are deprived of all the conditions of intuition, on which alone experience is possible, and so these concepts lose all significance.
There is no danger, however, of the understanding spontaneously making an excursion so very wantonly beyond its own bounds into the field of the mere creatures of thought, without being impelled by foreign laws. But when reason, which cannot be fully satisfied with any empirical use of the rules of the understanding, as being always conditioned, requires a completion of this chain of conditions, then the understanding is forced out of its sphere. And then it partly represents objects of experience in a series so extended that no experience can grasp, partly even (with a view to complete the series) it seeks entirely beyond it noumena, to which it can attach that chain, and so, having at last escaped from the conditions of experience, make its attitude as it were final. These are then the transcendental ideas, which, though according to the true but hidden ends of the natural determination of our reason, they may aim not at extravagant concepts, but at an unbounded extension of their empirical use, yet seduce the understanding by an unavoidable illusion to a transcendent use, which, though deceitful, cannot be restrained within the bounds of experience by any resolution, but only by scientific instruction and with much difficulty.
I. The Psychological Idea.{30}
=================================== {30} See Critique of Pure Reason, Von den Paralogismen der reinen Vernunft. ===================================
. Vorläufige Bemerkung zur Dialektik der reinen Vernunft
Wir haben oben Paragraph 33, 34 gezeigt: daß die Reinigkeit der Kategorien von aller Beimischung sinnlicher Bestimmungen die Vernunft verleiten könne, ihren Gebrauch gänzlich, über alle Erfahrung hinaus, auf Dinge an sich selbst auszudehnen, wiewohl, da sie selbst keine Anschauung finden, welche ihnen Bedeutung und Sinn in concreto verschaffen könnte, sie als bloß logische Funktionen, zwar ein Ding überhaupt vorstellen, aber vor sich allein keinen bestimmten Begriff von irgend einem Dinge geben können. Dergleichen hyperbolische Objekte sind nun die, so manNoumenaoder reine Verstandeswesen (besser Gedankenwesen) nennt, als z.B.Substanz, welche aberohne Beharrlichkeitin der Zeit gedacht wird, oder eineUrsache, die abernicht in der Zeitwirkte, u.s.w., da man ihnen denn Prädikate beilegt, die bloß dazu dienen, die Gesetzmäßigkeit der Erfahrung möglich zu machen, und gleichwohl alle Bedingungen der Anschauung, unter denen allein Erfahrung möglich ist, von ihnen wegnimmt, wodurch jene Begriffe wiederum alle Bedeutung verlieren.
Es hat aber keine Gefahr, daß der Verstand von selbst, ohne durch fremde Gesetze gedrungen zu sein, über seine Grenzen so ganz mutwillig in das Feld von bloßen Gedankenwesen ausschweifen werde. Wenn aber die Vernunft, die mit keinem Erfahrungsgebrauche der Verstandesregeln, als der immer noch bedingt ist, völlig befriedigt sein kann, Vollendung dieser Kette von Bedingungen fodert, so wird der Verstand aus seinem Kreise getrieben, um teils Gegenstände der Erfahrung in einer so weit erstreckten Reihe vorzustellen, dergleichen gar keine Erfahrung fassen kann, teils so gar (um sie zu vollenden) gänzlich außerhalb derselbenNoumenazu suchen, an welche sie jene Kette knüpfen und dadurch, von Erfahrungsbedingungen endlich einmal unabhängig, ihre Haltung gleichwohl vollständig machen könne. Das sind nun die transzendentalen Ideen, welche, sie mögen nun, nach dem wahren, aber verborgenen Zwecke der Naturbestimmung unserer Vernunft, nicht auf überschwengliche Begriffe, sondern bloß auf unbegrenzte Erweiterung des Erfahrungsgebrauchs angelegt sein, dennoch durch einen unvermeidlichen Schein dem Verstande einentranszendentenGebrauch ablocken, der, obzwar betrüglich, dennoch durch keinen Vorsatz, innerhalb den Grenzen der Erfahrung zu bleiben, sondern nur durch wissenschaftliche Belehrung und mit Mühe in Schranken gebracht werden kann.
Online-Bibliothek
I. Psychologische Ideen
(Kritik, S. 341 u. f.)
People have long since observed, that in all substances the proper subject, that which remains after all the accidents (as predicates) are abstracted, consequently that which forms the substance of things remains unknown, and various complaints have been made concerning these limits to our knowledge. But it will be well to consider that the human understanding is not to be blamed for its inability to know the substance of things, that is, to determine it by itself, but rather for requiring to cognise it which is a mere idea definitely as though it were a given object. Pure reason requires us to seek for every predicate of a thing its proper subject, and for this subject, which is itself necessarily nothing but a predicate, its subject, and so on indefinitely (or as far as we can reach). But hence it follows, that we must not hold anything, at which we can arrive, to be an ultimate subject, and that substance itself never can be thought by our understanding, however deep we may penetrate, even if all nature were unveiled to us. For the specific nature of our understanding consists in thinking everything discursively, that is, representing it by concepts, and so by mere predicates, to which therefore the absolute subject must always be wanting. Hence all the real properties, by which we cognise bodies, are mere accidents, not excepting impenetrability, which we can only represent to ourselves as the effect of a power of which the subject is unknown to us.
Now we appear to have this substance in the consciousness of ourselves (in the thinking subject), and indeed in an immediate intuition; for all the predicates of an internal sense refer to the ego, as a subject, and I cannot conceive myself as the predicate of any other subject. Hence completeness in the reference of the given concepts as predicates to a subject—not merely an idea, but an object—that is, the absolute subject itself, seems to be given in experience. But this expectation is disappointed. For the ego is not a concept,{31} but only the indication of the object of the internal sense, so far as we cognise it by no further predicate. Consequently it cannot be in itself a predicate of any other thing; but just as little can it be a determinate concept of an absolute subject, but is, as in all other cases, only the reference of the internal phenomena to their unknown subject. Yet this idea (which serves very well, as a regulative principle, totally to destroy all materialistic explanations of the internal phenomena of the soul) occasions by a very natural misunderstanding a very specious argument, which, from this supposed cognition of the substance of our thinking being, infers its nature, so far as the knowledge of it falls quite without the complex of experience.
=================================== {31} Were the representation of the apperception (the Ego) a concept, by which anything could be thought, it could be used as a predicate of other things or contain predicates in itself. But it is nothing more than the feeling of an existence without the least definite conception and is only the representation of that to which all thinking stands in relation (relatione accidentis). ===================================
Man hat schon längst angemerkt, daß uns an allen Substanzen das eigentliche Subjekt, nämlich das, was übrig bleibt, nachdem alle Akzidenzen (als Prädikate) abgesondert worden, mithin dasSubstantialeselbst, unbekannt sei, und über diese Schranken unsrer Einsicht vielfältig Klagen geführt. Es ist aber hiebei wohl zu merken, daß der menschliche Verstand darüber nicht in Anspruch zu nehmen sei: daß er das Substantiale der Dinge nicht kennt, d.i. vor sich allein bestimmen kann, sondern vielmehr darüber, daß er es, als eine bloße Idee, gleich einem gegebenen Gegenstande bestimmt, zu erkennen verlangt. Die reine Vernunft fodert, daß wir zu jedem Prädikate eines Dinges sein ihm zugehöriges Subjekt, zu diesem aber, welches notwendiger Weise wiederum nur Prädikat ist, fernerhin sein Subjekt und so forthin ins Unendliche (oder so weit wir reichen) suchen sollen. Aber hieraus folgt, daß wir nichts, wozu wir gelangen können, vor ein letztes Subjekt halten sollen, und daß das Substantial selbst niemals von unserm noch so tief eindringenden Verstande, selbst wenn ihm die ganze Natur aufgedeckt wäre, gedacht werden könne; weil die spezifische Natur unseres Verstandes darin besteht, alles diskursiv, d.i. durch Begriffe, mithin auch durch lauter Prädikate zu denken, wozu also das absolute Subjekt jederzeit fehlen muß. Daher sind alle reale Eigenschaften, dadurch wir Körper erkennen, lauter Akzidenzen, so gar die Undurchdringlichkeit, die man sich immer nur als die Wirkung einer Kraft vorstellen muß, dazu uns das Subjekt fehlt.
Nun scheint es, als ob wir in dem Bewußtsein unserer selbst (dem denkenden Subjekt) dieses Substantiale haben, und zwar in einer unmittelbaren Anschauung; denn alle Prädikate des innern Sinnes beziehen sich auf das Ich, als Subjekt, und dieses kann nicht weiter als Prädikat irgend eines andern Subjekts gedacht werden. Also scheint hier die Vollständigkeit in der Beziehung der gegebenen Begriffe als Prädikate auf ein Subjekt nicht bloß Idee, sondern der Gegenstand, nämlich dasabsolute Subjektselbst, in der Erfahrung gegeben zu sein. Allein diese Erwartung wird vereitelt. Denn das Ich ist gar kein Begriff18, sondern nur Bezeichnung des Gegenstandes des innern Sinnes, so fern wir es durch kein Prädikat weiter erkennen, mithin kann es zwar an sich kein Prädikat von einem andern Dinge sein, aber eben so wenig auch ein bestimmter Begriff eines absoluten Subjekts, sondern nur, wie in allen andern Fällen, die Beziehung der innern Erscheinungen auf das unbekannte Subjekt derselben. Gleichwohl veranlaßt diese Idee (die gar wohl dazu dient, als regulatives Prinzip alle materialistische Erklärungen der innern Erscheinungen unserer Seele gänzlich zu vernichten)19 durch einen ganz natürlichen Mißverstand ein sehr scheinbares Argument, um, aus diesem vermeinten Erkenntnis von dem Substantiale unseres denkenden Wesens, seine Natur, so fern die Kenntnis derselben ganz außer den Inbegriff der Erfahrung hinausfällt, zu schließen.
But though we may call this thinking self (the soul) substance, as being the ultimate subject of thinking which cannot be further represented as the predicate of another thing; it remains quite empty and without significance, if permanence—the quality which renders the concept of substances in experience fruitful—cannot be proved of it.
But permanence can never be proved of the concept of a substance, as a thing in itself, but for the purposes of experience only. This is sufficiently shown by the first Analogy of Experience,{32} and who ever will not yield to this proof may try for himself whether he can succeed in proving, from the concept of a subject which does not exist itself as the predicate of another thing, that its existence is thoroughly permanent, and that it cannot either in itself or by any natural cause originate or be annihilated. These synthetical a priori propositions can never be proved in themselves, but only in reference to things as objects of possible experience.
=================================== {32} Cf. Critique, Von den Analogien der Erfahrung. ===================================
Dieses denkende Selbst (die Seele) mag nun aber auch als das letzte Subjekt des Denkens, was selbst nicht weiter als Prädikat eines andern Dinges vorgestellt werden kann, Substanz heißen: so bleibt dieser Begriff doch gänzlich leer, und ohne alle Folgen, wenn nicht von ihm die Beharrlichkeit, als das, was den Begriff der Substanzen in der Erfahrung fruchtbar macht, bewiesen werden kann.
Die Beharrlichkeit kann aber niemals aus dem Begriffe einer Substanz, als eines Dinges an sich, sondern nur zum Behuf der Erfahrung bewiesen werden. Dieses ist bei der ersten Analogie der Erfahrung hinreichend dargetan worden (Kritik, S. 182), und, will man sich diesem Beweise nicht ergeben, so darf man nur den Versuch selbst anstellen, ob es gelingen werde, aus dem Begriffe eines Subjekts, was selbst nicht als Prädikat eines andern Dinges existiert, zu beweisen, daß sein Dasein durchaus beharrlich sei, und daß es, weder an sich selbst, noch durch irgend eine Naturursache entstehen, oder vergehen könne. Dergleichen synthetische Sätze a priori können niemals an sich selbst, sondern jederzeit nur in Beziehung auf Dinge, als Gegenstände einer möglichen Erfahrung, bewiesen werden.
If therefore from the concept of the soul as a substance, we would infer its permanence, this can hold good as regards possible experience only, not [of the soul] as a thing in itself and beyond all possible experience. But life is the subjective condition of all our possible experience, consequently we can only infer the permanence of the soul in life; for the death of man is the end of all experience which concerns the soul as an object of experience, except the contrary be proved, which is the very question in hand. The permanence of the soul can therefore only be proved (and no one cares for that) during the life of man, but not, as we desire to do, after death; and for this general reason, that the concept of substance, so far as it is to be considered necessarily combined with the concept of permanence, can be so combined only according to the principles of possible experience, and therefore for the purposes of experience only.{33}
=================================== {33} It is indeed very remarkable how carelessly metaphysicians have always passed over the principle of the permanence of substances without ever attempting a proof of it; doubtless because they found themselves abandoned by all proofs as soon as they began to deal with the concept of substance. Common sense, which felt distinctly that without this presupposition do union of perceptions in experience is possible, supplied the want by a postulate. From experience itself it never could derive such a principle, partly because substances cannot be so traced in all their alterations and dissolutions, that the matter can always be found undiminished, partly because the principle contains necessity, which is always the sign of an a priori principle. People then boldly applied this postulate to the concept of soul as a substance, and concluded a necessary continuance of the soul after the death of man (especially as the simplicity of this substance, which is inferred from the indivisibility of consciousness, secured it from destruction by dissolution). Had they found the genuine source of this principle—a discovery which requires deeper researches than they were ever inclined to make—they would have seen, that the law of the permanence of substances has place for the purposes of experience only, and hence can hold good of things so far as they are to be cognised and conjoined with others in experience, but never independently of all possible experience, and consequently cannot hold good of the soul after death. ===================================
Wenn wir also aus dem Begriffe der Seele als Substanz auf Beharrlichkeit derselben schließen wollen: so kann dieses von ihr doch nur zum Behuf möglicher Erfahrung, und nicht von ihr, als einem Dinge an sich selbst und über alle mögliche Erfahrung hinaus gelten. Nun ist die subjektive Bedingung aller unserer möglichen Erfahrung das Leben: folglich kann nur auf die Beharrlichkeit der Seele im Leben geschlossen werden, denn der Tod des Menschen ist das Ende aller Erfahrung, was die Seele als einen Gegenstand derselben betrifft, wofern nicht das Gegenteil dargetan wird, als wovon eben die Frage ist. Also kann die Beharrlichkeit der Seele nur im Leben des Menschen (deren Beweis man uns wohl schenken wird) aber nicht nach dem Tode (als woran uns eigentlich gelegen ist) dargetan werden, und zwar aus dem allgemeinen Grunde, weil der Begriff der Substanz, so fern er mit dem Begriff der Beharrlichkeit als notwendig verbunden angesehen werden soll, dieses nur nach einem Grundsatze möglicher Erfahrung und also auch nur zum Behuf derselben sein kann.20
Page 17 of 27 · Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant , tr. Paul Carus · Project Gutenberg