§49That there is something real without us which not only corresponds, but must correspond, to our external perceptions, can likewise be proved to be not a connexion of things in themselves, but for the sake of experience. This means that there is something empirical, i.e., some phenomenon in space without us, that admits of a satisfactory proof, for we have nothing to do with other objects than those which belong to possible experience; because objects which cannot be given us in any experience, do not exist for us. Empirically without me is that which appears in space, and space, together with all the phenomena which it contains, belongs to the representations, whose connexion according to laws of experience proves their objective truth, just as the connexion of the phenomena of the internal sense proves the actuality of my soul (as an object of the internal sense). By means of external experience I am conscious of the actuality of bodies, as external phenomena in space, in the same manner as by means of the internal experience I am conscious of the existence of my soul in time, but this soul is only cognised as an object of the internal sense by phenomena that constitute an internal state, and of which the essence in itself, which forms the basis of these phenomena, is unknown. Cartesian idealism therefore does nothing but distinguish external experience from dreaming; and the conformity to law (as a criterion of its truth) of the former, from the irregularity and the false illusion of the latter. In both it presupposes space and time as conditions of the existence of objects, and it only inquires whether the objects of the external senses, which we when awake put in space, are as actually to be found in it, as the object of the internal sense, the soul, is in time; that is, whether experience carries with it sure criteria to distinguish it from imagination. This doubt, however, may be easily disposed of, and we always do so in common life by investigating the connexion of phenomena in both space and time according to universal laws of experience, and we cannot doubt, when the representation of external things throughout agrees therewith, that they constitute truthful experience. Material idealism, in which phenomena are considered as such only according to their connexion in experience, may accordingly be very easily refuted; and it is just as sure an experience, that bodies exist without us (in space), as that I myself exist according to the representation of the internal sense (in time): for the notion without us, only signifies existence in space. However as the Ego in the proposition, "I am," means not only the object of internal intuition (in time), but the subject of consciousness, just as body means not only external intuition (in space), but the thing-in-itself, which is the basis of this phenomenon; [as this is the case] the question, whether bodies (as phenomena of the external sense) exist as bodies apart from my thoughts, may without any hesitation be denied in nature. But the question, whether I myself as a phenomenon of the internal sense (the soul according to empirical psychology) exist apart from my faculty of representation in time, is an exactly similar inquiry, and must likewise be answered in the negative. And in this manner everything, when it is reduced to its true meaning, is decided and certain. The formal (which I have also called transcendental) actually abolishes the material, or Cartesian, idealism. For if space be nothing but a form of my sensibility, it is as a representation in me just as actual as I myself am, and nothing but the empirical truth of the representations in it remains for consideration. But, if this is not the case, if space and the phenomena in it are something existing without us, then all the criteria of experience beyond our perception can never prove the actuality of these objects without us.
II. The Cosmological Idea.{34}
=================================== {34} Cf. Critique, Die Antinomie der reinen Vernunft. ===================================
§50This product of pure reason in its transcendent use is its most remarkable curiosity. It serves as a very powerful agent to rouse philosophy from its dogmatic slumber, and to stimulate it to the arduous task of undertaking a Critique of Reason itself.
I term this idea cosmological, because it always takes its object only from the sensible world, and does not use any other than those whose object is given to sense, consequently it remains in this respect in its native home, it does not become transcendent, and is therefore so far not mere idea; whereas, to conceive the soul as a simple substance, already means to conceive such an object (the simple) as cannot be presented to the senses. Yet the cosmological idea extends the connexion of the conditioned with its condition (whether the connexion is mathematical or dynamical) so far, that experience never can keep up with it. It is therefore with regard to this point always an idea, whose object never can be adequately given in any experience.
§51In the first place, the use of a system of categories becomes here so obvious and unmistakable, that even if there were not several other proofs of it, this alone would sufficiently prove it indispensable in the system of pure reason. There are only four such transcendent ideas, as there are so many classes of categories; in each of which, however, they refer only to the absolute completeness of the series of the conditions for a given conditioned. In analogy to these cosmological ideas there are only four kinds of dialectical assertions of pure reason, which, as they are dialectical, thereby prove, that to each of them, on equally specious principles of pure reason, a contradictory assertion stands opposed. As all the metaphysical art of the most subtile distinction cannot prevent this opposition, it compels the philosopher to recur to the first sources of pure reason itself. This Antinomy, not arbitrarily invented, but founded in the nature of human reason, and hence unavoidable and never ceasing, contains the following four theses together with their antitheses:
1.
Thesis. The World has, as to Time and Space, a Beginning (limit).
Antithesis. The World is, as to Time and Space, infinite.
2.
Thesis. Everything in the World consists of [elements that are] simple.
Antithesis. There is nothing simple, but everything is composite.
3.
Thesis. There are in the World Causes through Freedom.
Antithesis. There is no Liberty, but all is Nature.
4.
Thesis. In the Series of the World-Causes there is some necessary Being.
Antithesis. There is Nothing necessary in the World, but in this Series All is incidental.
§52aHere is the most singular phenomenon of human reason, no other instance of which can be shown in any other use. If we, as is commonly done, represent to ourselves the appearances of the sensible world as things in themselves, if we assume the principles of their combination as principles universally valid of things in themselves and not merely of experience, as is usually, nay without our Critique, unavoidably done, there arises an unexpected conflict, which never can be removed in the common dogmatical way; because the thesis, as well as the antithesis, can be shown by equally clear, evident, and irresistible proofs—for I pledge myself as to the correctness of all these proofs—and reason therefore perceives that it is divided with itself, a state at which the sceptic rejoices, but which must make the critical philosopher pause and feel ill at ease.
§52bWe may blunder in various ways in metaphysics without any fear of being detected in falsehood. For we never can be refuted by experience if we but avoid self-contradiction, which in synthetical, though purely fictitious propositions, may be done whenever the concepts, which we connect, are mere ideas, that cannot be given (in their whole content) in experience. For how can we make out by experience, whether the world is from eternity or had a beginning, whether matter is infinitely divisible or consists of simple parts? Such concept cannot be given in any experience, be it ever so extensive, and consequently the falsehood either of the positive or the negative proposition cannot be discovered by this touch-stone.
The only possible way in which reason could have revealed unintentionally its secret Dialectics, falsely announced as Dogmatics, would be when it were made to ground an assertion upon a universally admitted principle, and to deduce the exact contrary with the greatest accuracy of inference from another which is equally granted. This is actually here the case with regard to four natural ideas of reason, whence four assertions on the one side, and as many counter-assertions on the other arise, each consistently following from universally-acknowledged principles. Thus they reveal by the use of these principles the dialectical illusion of pure reason which would otherwise forever remain concealed.
This is therefore a decisive experiment, which must necessarily expose any error lying hidden in the assumptions of reason.{35} Contradictory propositions cannot both be false, except the concept, which is the subject of both, is self-contradictory; for example, the propositions, "a square circle is round, and a square circle is not round," are both false. For, as to the former it is false, that the circle is round, because it is quadrangular; and it is likewise false, that it is not round, that is, angular, because it is a circle. For the logical criterion of the impossibility of a concept consists in this, that if we presuppose it, two contradictory propositions both become false; consequently, as no middle between them is conceivable, nothing at all is thought by that concept.
=================================== {35} I therefore would be pleased to have the critical reader to devote to this antinomy of pure reason his chief attention, because nature itself seems to have established it with a view to stagger reason in its daring pretentions, and to force it to self-examination. For every proof, which I have given, as well of the thesis as of the antithesis, I undertake to be responsible, and thereby to show the certainty of the inevitable antinomy of reason. When the reader is brought by this curious phenomenon to fall back upon the proof of the presumption upon which it rests, he will feel himself obliged to investigate the ultimate foundation of all the cognition of pure reason with me more thoroughly. ===================================
That there is something real without us which not only corresponds, but must correspond, to our external perceptions, can likewise be proved to be not a connexion of things in themselves, but for the sake of experience. This means that there is something empirical, i.e., some phenomenon in space without us, that admits of a satisfactory proof, for we have nothing to do with other objects than those which belong to possible experience; because objects which cannot be given us in any experience, do not exist for us. Empirically without me is that which appears in space, and space, together with all the phenomena which it contains, belongs to the representations, whose connexion according to laws of experience proves their objective truth, just as the connexion of the phenomena of the internal sense proves the actuality of my soul (as an object of the internal sense). By means of external experience I am conscious of the actuality of bodies, as external phenomena in space, in the same manner as by means of the internal experience I am conscious of the existence of my soul in time, but this soul is only cognised as an object of the internal sense by phenomena that constitute an internal state, and of which the essence in itself, which forms the basis of these phenomena, is unknown. Cartesian idealism therefore does nothing but distinguish external experience from dreaming; and the conformity to law (as a criterion of its truth) of the former, from the irregularity and the false illusion of the latter. In both it presupposes space and time as conditions of the existence of objects, and it only inquires whether the objects of the external senses, which we when awake put in space, are as actually to be found in it, as the object of the internal sense, the soul, is in time; that is, whether experience carries with it sure criteria to distinguish it from imagination. This doubt, however, may be easily disposed of, and we always do so in common life by investigating the connexion of phenomena in both space and time according to universal laws of experience, and we cannot doubt, when the representation of external things throughout agrees therewith, that they constitute truthful experience. Material idealism, in which phenomena are considered as such only according to their connexion in experience, may accordingly be very easily refuted; and it is just as sure an experience, that bodies exist without us (in space), as that I myself exist according to the representation of the internal sense (in time): for the notion without us, only signifies existence in space. However as the Ego in the proposition, "I am," means not only the object of internal intuition (in time), but the subject of consciousness, just as body means not only external intuition (in space), but the thing-in-itself, which is the basis of this phenomenon; [as this is the case] the question, whether bodies (as phenomena of the external sense) exist as bodies apart from my thoughts, may without any hesitation be denied in nature. But the question, whether I myself as a phenomenon of the internal sense (the soul according to empirical psychology) exist apart from my faculty of representation in time, is an exactly similar inquiry, and must likewise be answered in the negative. And in this manner everything, when it is reduced to its true meaning, is decided and certain. The formal (which I have also called transcendental) actually abolishes the material, or Cartesian, idealism. For if space be nothing but a form of my sensibility, it is as a representation in me just as actual as I myself am, and nothing but the empirical truth of the representations in it remains for consideration. But, if this is not the case, if space and the phenomena in it are something existing without us, then all the criteria of experience beyond our perception can never prove the actuality of these objects without us.
II. The Cosmological Idea.{34}
=================================== {34} Cf. Critique, Die Antinomie der reinen Vernunft. ===================================
Daß unseren äußeren Wahrnehmungen etwas Wirkliches außer uns, nicht bloß korrespondiere, sondern auch korrespondieren müsse, kann gleichfalls niemals als Verknüpfung der Dinge an sich selbst, wohl aber zum Behuf der Erfahrung bewiesen werden. Dieses will so viel sagen: daß etwas auf empirische Art, mithin als Erscheinung im Raume außer uns sei, kann man gar wohl beweisen; denn mit andern Gegenständen, als denen, die zu einer möglichen Erfahrung gehören, haben wir es nicht zu tun, eben darum, weil sie uns in keiner Erfahrung gegeben werden können, und also vor uns nichts sein. Empirisch außer mir ist das, was im Raume angeschaut wird, und da dieser samt allen Erscheinungen, die er enthält, zu den Vorstellungen gehört, deren Verknüpfung nach Erfahrungsgesetzen eben sowohl ihre objektive Wahrheit beweiset, als die Verknüpfung der Erscheinungen des innern Sinnes die Wirklichkeit meiner Seele (als eines Gegenstandes des innern Sinnes), so bin ich mir vermittelst der äußern Erfahrung eben sowohl der Wirklichkeit der Körper, als äußerer Erscheinungen im Raume, wie vermittelst der innern Erfahrung des Daseins meiner Seele in der Zeit, bewußt, die ich auch nur, als einen Gegenstand des innern Sinnes, durch Erscheinungen, die einen innern Zustand ausmachen, erkennen, und wovon mir das Wesen an sich selbst, das diesen Erscheinungen zum Grunde liegt, unbekannt ist. Der Cartesianische Idealism unterscheidet also nur äußere Erfahrung vom Traume, und die Gesetzmäßigkeit, als ein Kriterium der Wahrheit der erstern, von der Regellosigkeit und dem falschen Schein der letztern. Er setzt in beiden Raum und Zeit als Bedingungen des Daseins der Gegenstände voraus, und frägt nur, ob die Gegenstände äußerer Sinne wirklich im Raum anzutreffen sein, die wir darin im Wachen setzen, so wie der Gegenstand des innern Sinnes, die Seele, wirklich in der Zeit ist, d.i. ob Erfahrung sichere Kriterien der Unterscheidung von Einbildung bei sich führe. Hier läßt sich der Zweifel nun leicht heben, und wir heben ihn auch jederzeit im gemeinen Leben dadurch, daß wir die Verknüpfung der Erscheinungen in beiden nach allgemeinen Gesetzen der Erfahrung untersuchen, und können, wenn die Vorstellung äußerer Dinge damit durchgehends übereinstimmt, nicht zweifeln, daß sie nicht wahrhafte Erfahrung ausmachen sollten. Der materiale Idealism, da Erscheinungen als Erscheinungen nur nach ihrer Verknüpfung in der Erfahrung betrachtet werden, läßt also sich sehr leicht heben, und es ist eine eben so sichere Erfahrung, daß Körper außer uns (im Raume) existieren, als daß ich selbst, nach der Vorstellung des innern Sinnes (in der Zeit) da bin: Denn der Begriff:außer uns, bedeutet nur die Existenz im Raume. Da aber das Ich, in dem Satze:Ich bin, nicht bloß den Gegenstand der innern Anschauung (in der Zeit), sondern das Subjekt des Bewußtseins, so wie Körper nicht bloß die äußere Anschauung (im Raume) sondern auch das Dingan sich selbstbedeutet, was dieser Erscheinung zum Grunde liegt: so kann die Frage: ob die Körper (als Erscheinungen des äußern Sinnes)außer meinen Gedankenals Körper existieren, ohne alles Bedenken in der Natur verneinet werden; aber darin verhält es sich gar nicht anders mit der Frage, ob ich selbstals Erscheinung des innern Sinnes(Seele nach der empirischen Psychologie) außer meiner Vorstellungskraft in der Zeit existiere, denn diese muß eben so wohl verneinet werden. Auf solche Weise ist alles, wenn es auf seine wahre Bedeutung gebracht wird, entschieden, und gewiß. Der formale Idealism (sonst von mir transzendentale genannt) hebt wirklich den materiellen oder Cartesianischen auf. Denn wenn der Raum nichts als eine Form meiner Sinnlichkeit ist, so ist er als Vorstellung in mir eben so wirklich, als ich selbst, und es kommt nur noch auf die empirische Wahrheit der Erscheinungen in demselben an. Ist das aber nicht, sondern der Raum und Erscheinungen in ihm sind etwas außer uns Existierendes, so können alle Kriterien der Erfahrung außer unserer Wahrnehmung niemals die Wirklichkeit dieser Gegenstände außer uns beweisen.
Buchempfehlung
Strindberg, August Johan
Inferno
Strindbergs autobiografischer Roman beschreibt seine schwersten Jahre von 1894 bis 1896, die »Infernokrise«. Von seiner zweiten Frau, Frida Uhl, getrennt leidet der Autor in Paris unter Angstzuständen, Verfolgungswahn und hegt Selbstmordabsichten. Er unternimmt alchimistische Versuche und verfällt den mystischen Betrachtungen Emanuel Swedenborgs. Visionen und Hysterien wechseln sich ab und verwischen die Grenze zwischen Genie und Wahnsinn.
146 Seiten, 9.80 Euro
Im Buch blättern
Ansehen bei Amazon
Buchempfehlung
Große Erzählungen der Spätromantik
Im nach dem Wiener Kongress neugeordneten Europa entsteht seit 1815 große Literatur der Sehnsucht und der Melancholie. Die Schattenseiten der menschlichen Seele, Leidenschaft und die Hinwendung zum Religiösen sind die Themen der Spätromantik. Michael Holzinger hat elf große Erzählungen dieser Zeit zu diesem Leseband zusammengefasst.
430 Seiten, 19.80 Euro
Ansehen bei Amazon
Online-Bibliothek
II. Kosmologische Ideen
(Krit., S. 405 u. f.)
This product of pure reason in its transcendent use is its most remarkable curiosity. It serves as a very powerful agent to rouse philosophy from its dogmatic slumber, and to stimulate it to the arduous task of undertaking a Critique of Reason itself.
I term this idea cosmological, because it always takes its object only from the sensible world, and does not use any other than those whose object is given to sense, consequently it remains in this respect in its native home, it does not become transcendent, and is therefore so far not mere idea; whereas, to conceive the soul as a simple substance, already means to conceive such an object (the simple) as cannot be presented to the senses. Yet the cosmological idea extends the connexion of the conditioned with its condition (whether the connexion is mathematical or dynamical) so far, that experience never can keep up with it. It is therefore with regard to this point always an idea, whose object never can be adequately given in any experience.
Dieses Produkt der reinen Vernunft in ihrem transzendenten Gebrauch ist das merkwürdigste Phänomen derselben, welches auch unter allen am kräftigsten wirkt, die Philosophie aus ihrem dogmatischen Schlummer zu erwecken, und sie zu dem schweren Geschäfte der Kritik der Vernunft selbst zu bewegen.
Ich nenne diese Idee deswegen kosmologisch, weil sie ihr Objekt jederzeit nur in der Sinnenwelt nimmt, auch keine andere als die, deren Gegenstand ein Objekt der Sinne ist, braucht, mithin so fern einheimisch und nicht transzendent, folglich bis dahin noch keine Idee ist; dahingegen, die Seele sich als eine einfache Substanz denken, schon so viel heißt, als sich einen Gegenstand denken (das Einfache), dergleichen den Sinnen gar nicht vorgestellt werden können. Demungeachtet erweitert doch die kosmologische Idee die Verknüpfung des Bedingten mit seiner Bedingung (diese mag mathematisch oder dynamisch sein) so sehr, daß Erfahrung ihr niemals gleichkommen kann, und ist also in Ansehung dieses Punkts immer eine Idee, deren Gegenstand niemals adäquat in irgend einer Erfahrung gegeben werden kann.
In the first place, the use of a system of categories becomes here so obvious and unmistakable, that even if there were not several other proofs of it, this alone would sufficiently prove it indispensable in the system of pure reason. There are only four such transcendent ideas, as there are so many classes of categories; in each of which, however, they refer only to the absolute completeness of the series of the conditions for a given conditioned. In analogy to these cosmological ideas there are only four kinds of dialectical assertions of pure reason, which, as they are dialectical, thereby prove, that to each of them, on equally specious principles of pure reason, a contradictory assertion stands opposed. As all the metaphysical art of the most subtile distinction cannot prevent this opposition, it compels the philosopher to recur to the first sources of pure reason itself. This Antinomy, not arbitrarily invented, but founded in the nature of human reason, and hence unavoidable and never ceasing, contains the following four theses together with their antitheses:
1.
Thesis. The World has, as to Time and Space, a Beginning (limit).
Antithesis. The World is, as to Time and Space, infinite.
2.
Thesis. Everything in the World consists of [elements that are] simple.
Antithesis. There is nothing simple, but everything is composite.
3.
Thesis. There are in the World Causes through Freedom.
Antithesis. There is no Liberty, but all is Nature.
4.
Thesis. In the Series of the World-Causes there is some necessary Being.
Antithesis. There is Nothing necessary in the World, but in this Series All is incidental.
Zuerst zeigt sich hier der Nutzen eines Systems der Kategorien so deutlich und unverkennbar, daß, wenn es auch nicht mehrere Beweistümer desselben gäbe, dieser allein ihre Unentbehrlichkeit im System der reinen Vernunft hinreichend dartun würde. Es sind solcher transzendenten Ideen nicht mehr als vier, so viel als Klassen der Kategorien; in jeder derselben aber gehen sie nur auf die absolute Vollständigkeit der Reihe der Bedingungen zu einem gegebenen Bedingten. Diesen kosmologischen Ideen gemäß gibt es auch nur viererlei dialektische Behauptungen der reinen Vernunft, die, da sie dialektisch sind, dadurch selbst beweisen, daß einer jeden, nach ebenso scheinbaren Grundsätzen der reinen Vernunft, ein ihm widersprechender entgegensteht, welchen Widerstreit keine metaphysische Kunst der subtilsten Distinktion verhüten kann, sondern die den Philosophen nötigt, zu den ersten Quellen der reinen Vernunft selbst zurück zu gehen. Diese nicht etwa beliebig erdachte, sondern in der Natur der menschlichen Vernunft gegründete, mithin unvermeidliche und niemals ein Ende nehmende Antinomie enthält nun folgende vier Sätze samt ihren Gegensätzen.
1.
Satz
Die Welt hat der Zeit und dem Raum nach einen Anfang (Grenze)
Gegensatz
Die Welt ist der Zeit und dem Raum nach unendlich
2.
Satz
Alles in der Welt besteht aus demEinfachen
Gegensatz
Es ist nichts Einfaches, sondern alles istzusammengesetzt
3.
Satz
Es gibt in der Welt Ursachen durchFreiheit
Gegensatz
Es ist keine Freiheit, sondern alles istNatur
4.
Satz.
In der Reihe der Weltursachen ist irgend einnotwendig Wesen
Gegensatz
Es ist in ihr nichts notwendig, sondern in dieser Reihe istalles zufällig
Here is the most singular phenomenon of human reason, no other instance of which can be shown in any other use. If we, as is commonly done, represent to ourselves the appearances of the sensible world as things in themselves, if we assume the principles of their combination as principles universally valid of things in themselves and not merely of experience, as is usually, nay without our Critique, unavoidably done, there arises an unexpected conflict, which never can be removed in the common dogmatical way; because the thesis, as well as the antithesis, can be shown by equally clear, evident, and irresistible proofs—for I pledge myself as to the correctness of all these proofs—and reason therefore perceives that it is divided with itself, a state at which the sceptic rejoices, but which must make the critical philosopher pause and feel ill at ease.
Hier ist nun das seltsamste Phänomen der menschlichen Vernunft, wovon sonst kein Beispiel in irgend einem andern Gebrauch derselben gezeigt werden kann. Wenn wir, wie es gewöhnlich geschieht, uns die Erscheinungen der Sinnenwelt als Dinge an sich selbst denken, wenn wir die Grundsätze ihrer Verbindung als allgemein von Dingen an sich selbst und nicht bloß von der Erfahrung geltende Grundsätze annehmen, wie denn dieses eben so gewöhnlich, ja ohne unsre Kritik unvermeidlich ist: so tut sich ein nicht vermuteter Widerstreit hervor, der niemals auf dem gewöhnlichen dogmatischen Wege beigelegt werden kann, weil sowohl Satz als Gegensatz durch gleich einleuchtende klare und unwiderstehliche Beweise dargetan werden können – denn vor die Richtigkeit aller dieser Beweise verbürge ich mich –, und die Vernunft sich also mit sich selbst entzweit sieht, ein Zustand, über den der Skeptiker frohlockt, der kritische Philosoph aber in Nachdenken und Unruhe versetzt werden muß.
We may blunder in various ways in metaphysics without any fear of being detected in falsehood. For we never can be refuted by experience if we but avoid self-contradiction, which in synthetical, though purely fictitious propositions, may be done whenever the concepts, which we connect, are mere ideas, that cannot be given (in their whole content) in experience. For how can we make out by experience, whether the world is from eternity or had a beginning, whether matter is infinitely divisible or consists of simple parts? Such concept cannot be given in any experience, be it ever so extensive, and consequently the falsehood either of the positive or the negative proposition cannot be discovered by this touch-stone.
The only possible way in which reason could have revealed unintentionally its secret Dialectics, falsely announced as Dogmatics, would be when it were made to ground an assertion upon a universally admitted principle, and to deduce the exact contrary with the greatest accuracy of inference from another which is equally granted. This is actually here the case with regard to four natural ideas of reason, whence four assertions on the one side, and as many counter-assertions on the other arise, each consistently following from universally-acknowledged principles. Thus they reveal by the use of these principles the dialectical illusion of pure reason which would otherwise forever remain concealed.
This is therefore a decisive experiment, which must necessarily expose any error lying hidden in the assumptions of reason.{35} Contradictory propositions cannot both be false, except the concept, which is the subject of both, is self-contradictory; for example, the propositions, "a square circle is round, and a square circle is not round," are both false. For, as to the former it is false, that the circle is round, because it is quadrangular; and it is likewise false, that it is not round, that is, angular, because it is a circle. For the logical criterion of the impossibility of a concept consists in this, that if we presuppose it, two contradictory propositions both become false; consequently, as no middle between them is conceivable, nothing at all is thought by that concept.
=================================== {35} I therefore would be pleased to have the critical reader to devote to this antinomy of pure reason his chief attention, because nature itself seems to have established it with a view to stagger reason in its daring pretentions, and to force it to self-examination. For every proof, which I have given, as well of the thesis as of the antithesis, I undertake to be responsible, and thereby to show the certainty of the inevitable antinomy of reason. When the reader is brought by this curious phenomenon to fall back upon the proof of the presumption upon which it rests, he will feel himself obliged to investigate the ultimate foundation of all the cognition of pure reason with me more thoroughly. ===================================
Man kann in der Metaphysik auf mancherlei Weise herumpfuschen, ohne eben zu besorgen, daß man auf Unwahrheit werde betreten werden. Denn, wenn man sich nur nicht selbst widerspricht, welches in synthetischen, obgleich gänzlich erdichteten Sätzen gar wohl möglich ist: so können wir in allen solchen Fällen, wo die Begriffe, die wir verknüpfen, bloße Ideen sind, die gar nicht (ihrem ganzen Inhalte nach) in der Erfahrung gegeben werden können, niemals durch Erfahrung widerlegt werden. Denn wie wollten wir es durch Erfahrung ausmachen: ob die Welt von Ewigkeit her sei, oder einen Anfang habe, ob Materie ins Unendliche teilbar sei, oder aus einfachen Teilen bestehe; der gleichen Begriffe lassen sich in keiner, auch der größtmöglichen Erfahrung geben, mithin die Unrichtigkeit des behauptenden oder verneinenden Satzes durch diesen Probierstein nicht entdecken.
Der einzige mögliche Fall, da die Vernunft ihre geheime Dialektik, die sie fälschlich vor Dogmatik ausgibt, wider ihren Willen offenbarete, wäre der, wenn sie auf einen allgemeinen zugestandnen Grundsatz eine Behauptung gründete, und aus einem andern eben so beglaubigten, mit der größten Richtigkeit der Schlußart, gerade das Gegenteil folgerte. Dieser Fall ist hier nun wirklich, und zwar in Ansehung vier natürlicher Vernunftideen, woraus vier Behauptungen einerseits, und eben so viel Gegenbehauptungen anderer Seits, jede mit richtiger Konsequenz aus allgemein zugestandnen Grundsätzen, entspringen, und dadurch den dialektischen Schein der reinen Vernunft im Gebrauch dieser Grundsätze offenbaren, der sonst auf ewig verborgen sein müßte.
Hier ist also ein entscheidender Versuch, der uns notwendig eine Unrichtigkeit entdecken muß, die in den Voraussetzungen der Vernunft verborgen liegt.21 Von zwei einander widersprechenden Sätzen können nicht alle beide falsch sein, außer, wenn der Begriff selbst widersprechend ist, der beiden zum Grunde liegt; z.B. die zwei Sätze: ein viereckichter Zirkel ist rund, und ein viereckichter Zirkel ist nicht rund, sind beide falsch. Denn, was den ersten betrifft, so ist es falsch, daß der genannte Zirkel rund sei, weil er viereckicht ist; es ist aber auch falsch, daß er nicht rund, d.i. eckicht sei, weil er ein Zirkel ist. Denn darin besteht eben das logische Merkmal der Unmöglichkeit eines Begriffs, daß unter desselben Voraussetzung zwei widersprechende Sätze zugleich falsch sein würden, mithin, weil kein Drittes zwischen ihnen gedacht werden kann, durch jenen Begriffgar nichtsgedacht wird.
Page 18 of 27 · Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant , tr. Paul Carus · Project Gutenberg