§52cThe first two antinomies, which I call mathematical, because they are concerned with the addition or division of the homogeneous, are founded on such a self-contradictory concept; and hence I explain how it happens, that both the Thesis and Antithesis of the two are false.
When I speak of objects in time and in space, it is not of things in themselves, of which I know nothing, but of things in appearance, that is, of experience, as the particular way of cognising objects which is afforded to man. I must not say of what I think in time or in space, that in itself, and independent of these my thoughts, it exists in space and in time; for in that case I should contradict myself; because space and time, together with the appearances in them, are nothing existing in themselves and outside of my representations, but are themselves only modes of representation, and it is palpably contradictory to say, that a mere mode of representation exists without our representation. Objects of the senses therefore exist only in experience; whereas to give them a self-subsisting existence apart from experience or before it, is merely to represent to ourselves that experience actually exists apart from experience or before it.
Now if I inquire after the quantity of the world, as to space and time, it is equally impossible, as regards all my notions, to declare it infinite or to declare it finite. For neither assertion can be contained in experience, because experience either of an infinite space, or of an infinite time elapsed, or again, of the boundary of the world by a void space, or by an antecedent void time, is impossible; these are mere ideas. This quantity of the world, which is determined in either way, should therefore exist in the world itself apart from all experience. This contradicts the notion of a world of sense, which is merely a complex of the appearances whose existence and connexion occur only in our representations, that is, in experience, since this latter is not an object in itself, but a mere mode of representation. Hence it follows, that as the concept of an absolutely existing world of sense is self-contradictory, the solution of the problem concerning its quantity, whether attempted affirmatively or negatively, is always false.
The same holds good of the second antinomy, which relates to the division of phenomena. For these are mere representations, and the parts exist merely in their representation, consequently in the division, or in a possible experience where they are given, and the division reaches only as far as this latter reaches. To assume that an appearance, e.g., that of body, contains in itself before all experience all the parts, which any possible experience can ever reach, is to impute to a mere appearance, which can exist only in experience, an existence previous to experience. In other words, it would mean that mere representations exist before they can be found in our faculty of representation. Such an assertion is self-contradictory, as also every solution of our misunderstood problem, whether we maintain, that bodies in themselves consist of an infinite number of parts, or of a finite number of simple parts.
§53In the first (the mathematical) class of antinomies the falsehood of the assumption consists in representing in one concept something self-contradictory as if it were compatible (i.e., an appearance as an object in itself). But, as to the second (the dynamical) class of antinomies, the falsehood of the representation consists in representing as contradictory what is compatible; so that, as in the former case, the opposed assertions are both false, in this case, on the other hand, where they are opposed to one another by mere misunderstanding, they may both be true.
Any mathematical connexion necessarily presupposes homogeneity of what is connected (in the concept of magnitude), while the dynamical one by no means requires the same. When we have to deal with extended magnitudes, all the parts must be homogeneous with one another and with the whole; whereas, in the connexion of cause and effect, homogeneity may indeed likewise be found, but is not necessary; for the concept of causality (by means of which something is posited through something else quite different from it), at all events, does not require it.
If the objects of the world of sense are taken for things in themselves, and the above laws of nature for the laws of things in themselves, the contradiction would be unavoidable. So also, if the subject of freedom were, like other objects, represented as mere appearance, the contradiction would be just as unavoidable, for the same predicate would at once be affirmed and denied of the same kind of object in the same sense. But if natural necessity is referred merely to appearances, and freedom merely to things in themselves, no contradiction arises, if we at once assume, or admit both kinds of causality, however difficult or impossible it may be to make the latter kind conceivable.
As appearance every effect is an event, or something that happens in time; it must, according to the universal law of nature, be preceded by a determination of the causality of its cause (a state), which follows according to a constant law. But this determination of the cause as causality must likewise be something that takes place or happens; the cause must have begun to act, otherwise no succession between it and the effect could be conceived. Otherwise the effect, as well as the causality of the cause, would have always existed. Therefore the determination of the cause to act must also have originated among appearances, and must consequently, as well as its effect, be an event, which must again have its cause, and so on; hence natural necessity must be the condition, on which effective causes are determined. Whereas if freedom is to be a property of certain causes of appearances, it must, as regards these, which are events, be a faculty of starting them spontaneously, that is, without the causality of the cause itself, and hence without requiring any other ground to determine its start. But then the cause, as to its causality, must not rank under time-determinations of its state, that is, it cannot be an appearance, and must be considered a thing in itself, while its effects would be only appearances.{36} If without contradiction we can think of the beings of understanding [Verstandeswesen] as exercising such an influence on appearances, then natural necessity will attach to all connexions of cause and effect in the sensuous world, though on the other hand, freedom can be granted to such cause, as is itself not an appearance (but the foundation of appearance). Nature therefore and freedom can without contradiction be attributed to the very same thing, but in different relations—on one side as a phenomenon, on the other as a thing in itself.
=================================== {36} The idea of freedom occurs only in the relation of the intellectual, as cause, to the appearance, as effect. Hence we cannot attribute freedom to matter in regard to the incessant action by which it fills its space, though this action takes place from an internal principle. We can likewise find no notion of freedom suitable to purely rational beings, for instance, to God, so far as his action is immanent. For his action, though independent of external determining causes, is determined in his eternal reason, that is, in the divine nature. It is only, if something is to start by an action, and so the effect occurs in the sequence of time, or in the world of sense (e.g., the beginning of the world), that we can put the question, whether the causality of the cause must in its turn have been started, or whether the cause can originate an effect without its causality itself beginning. In the former case the concept of this causality is a concept of natural necessity, in the latter, that of freedom. From this the reader will see, that, as I explained freedom to be the faculty of starting an event spontaneously, I have exactly hit the notion which is the problem of metaphysics. ===================================
We have in us a faculty, which not only stands in connexion with its subjective determining grounds that are the natural causes of its actions, and is so far the faculty of a being that itself belongs to appearances, but is also referred to objective grounds, that are only ideas, so far as they can determine this faculty, a connexion which is expressed by the word ought. This faculty is called reason, and, so far as we consider a being (man) entirely according to this objectively determinable reason, he cannot be considered as a being of sense, but this property is that of a thing in itself, of which we cannot comprehend the possibility—I mean how the ought (which however has never yet taken place) should determine its activity, and can become the cause of actions, whose effect is an appearance in the sensible world. Yet the causality of reason would be freedom with regard to the effects in the sensuous world, so far as we can consider objective grounds, which are themselves ideas, as their determinants. For its action in that case would not depend upon subjective conditions, consequently not upon those of time, and of course not upon the law of nature, which serves to determine them, because grounds of reason give to actions the rule universally, according to principles, without the influence of the circumstances of either time or place.
What I adduce here is merely meant as an example to make the thing intelligible, and does not necessarily belong to our problem, which must be decided from mere concepts, independently of the properties which we meet in the actual world.
Now I may say without contradiction: that all the actions of rational beings, so far as they are appearances (occurring in any experience), are subject to the necessity of nature; but the same actions, as regards merely the rational subject and its faculty of acting according to mere reason, are free. For what is required for the necessity of nature? Nothing more than the determinability of every event in the world of sense according to constant laws, that is, a reference to cause in the appearance; in this process the thing in itself at its foundation and its causality remain unknown. But I say, that the law of nature remains, whether the rational being is the cause of the effects in the sensuous world from reason, that is, through freedom, or whether it does not determine them on grounds of reason. For, if the former is the case, the action is performed according to maxims, the effect of which as appearance is always conform able to constant laws; if the latter is the case, and the action not performed on principles of reason, it is subjected to the empirical laws of the sensibility, and in both cases the effects are connected according to constant laws; more than this we do not require or know concerning natural necessity. But in the former case reason is the cause of these laws of nature, and therefore free; in the latter the effects follow according to mere natural laws of sensibility, because reason does not influence it; but reason itself is not determined on that account by the sensibility, and is therefore free in this case too. Freedom is therefore no hindrance to natural law in appearance, neither does this law abrogate the freedom of the practical use of reason, which is connected with things in themselves, as determining grounds.
Thus practical freedom, viz., the freedom in which reason possesses causality according to objectively determining grounds, is rescued and yet natural necessity is not in the least curtailed with regard to the very same effects, as appearances. The same remarks will serve to explain what we had to say concerning transcendental freedom and its compatibility with natural necessity (in the same subject, but not taken in the same reference). For, as to this, every beginning of the action of a being from objective causes regarded as determining grounds, is always a first start, though the same action is in the series of appearances only a subordinate start, which must be preceded by a state of the cause, which determines it, and is itself determined in the same manner by another immediately preceding. Thus we are able, in rational beings, or in beings generally, so far as their causality is determined in them as things in themselves, to imagine a faculty of beginning from itself a series of states, without falling into contradiction with the laws of nature. For the relation of the action to objective grounds of reason is not a time-relation; in this case that which determines the causality does not precede in time the action, because such determining grounds represent not a reference to objects of sense, e.g., to causes in the appearances, but to determining causes, as things in themselves, which do not rank under conditions of time. And in this way the action, with regard to the causality of reason, can be considered as a first start in respect to the series of appearances, and yet also as a merely subordinate beginning. We may therefore without contradiction consider it in the former aspect as free, but in the latter (in so far as it is merely appearance) as subject to natural necessity.
The first two antinomies, which I call mathematical, because they are concerned with the addition or division of the homogeneous, are founded on such a self-contradictory concept; and hence I explain how it happens, that both the Thesis and Antithesis of the two are false.
When I speak of objects in time and in space, it is not of things in themselves, of which I know nothing, but of things in appearance, that is, of experience, as the particular way of cognising objects which is afforded to man. I must not say of what I think in time or in space, that in itself, and independent of these my thoughts, it exists in space and in time; for in that case I should contradict myself; because space and time, together with the appearances in them, are nothing existing in themselves and outside of my representations, but are themselves only modes of representation, and it is palpably contradictory to say, that a mere mode of representation exists without our representation. Objects of the senses therefore exist only in experience; whereas to give them a self-subsisting existence apart from experience or before it, is merely to represent to ourselves that experience actually exists apart from experience or before it.
Now if I inquire after the quantity of the world, as to space and time, it is equally impossible, as regards all my notions, to declare it infinite or to declare it finite. For neither assertion can be contained in experience, because experience either of an infinite space, or of an infinite time elapsed, or again, of the boundary of the world by a void space, or by an antecedent void time, is impossible; these are mere ideas. This quantity of the world, which is determined in either way, should therefore exist in the world itself apart from all experience. This contradicts the notion of a world of sense, which is merely a complex of the appearances whose existence and connexion occur only in our representations, that is, in experience, since this latter is not an object in itself, but a mere mode of representation. Hence it follows, that as the concept of an absolutely existing world of sense is self-contradictory, the solution of the problem concerning its quantity, whether attempted affirmatively or negatively, is always false.
The same holds good of the second antinomy, which relates to the division of phenomena. For these are mere representations, and the parts exist merely in their representation, consequently in the division, or in a possible experience where they are given, and the division reaches only as far as this latter reaches. To assume that an appearance, e.g., that of body, contains in itself before all experience all the parts, which any possible experience can ever reach, is to impute to a mere appearance, which can exist only in experience, an existence previous to experience. In other words, it would mean that mere representations exist before they can be found in our faculty of representation. Such an assertion is self-contradictory, as also every solution of our misunderstood problem, whether we maintain, that bodies in themselves consist of an infinite number of parts, or of a finite number of simple parts.
Nun liegt den zwei ersteren Antinomien, die ich mathematische nenne, weil sie sich mit der Hinzusetzung oder Teilung des Gleichartigen beschäftigen, ein solcher widersprechender Begriff zum Grunde; und daraus erkläre ich, wie es zugehe: daß Thesis so wohl als Antithesis bei beiden falsch sind.
Wenn ich von Gegenständen in Zeit und Raum rede, so rede ich nicht von Dingen an sich selbst, darum, weil ich von diesen nichts weiß, sondern nur von Dingen in der Erscheinung, d.i. von der Erfahrung, als einer besondern Erkenntnisart der Objekte, die dem Menschen allein vergönnet ist. Was ich nun im Raume oder in der Zeit denke, von dem muß ich nicht sagen: daß es an sich selbst, auch ohne diesen meinen Gedanken, im Raume und der Zeit sei; denn da würde ich mir selbst widersprechen; weil Raum und Zeit, samt den Erscheinungen in ihnen, nichts an sich selbst und außer meinen Vorstellungen Existierendes, sondern selbst nur Vorstellungsarten sind, und es offenbar widersprechend ist, zu sagen, daß eine bloße Vorstellungsart auch außer unserer Vorstellung existiere. Die Gegenstände also der Sinne existieren nur in der Erfahrung; dagegen auch ohne dieselbe, oder vor ihr, ihnen eine eigene vor sich bestehende Existenz zu geben, heißt, so viel, als sich vorstellen, Erfahrung sei auch ohne Erfahrung, oder vor derselben wirklich.
Wenn ich nun nach der Weltgröße, dem Raume und der Zeit nach, frage, so ist es vor alle meine Begriffe eben so unmöglich zu sagen, sie sei unendlich, als sie sei endlich. Denn keines von beiden kann in der Erfahrung enthalten sein, weil weder von einemunendlichenRaume, oder unendlicher verflossener Zeit, nach derBegrenzungder Welt durch einen leeren Raum, oder eine vorhergehende leere Zeit, Erfahrung möglich ist; das sind nur Ideen. Also müßte diese, auf die eine oder die andre Art bestimmte Größe der Welt in ihr selbst liegen, abgesondert von aller Erfahrung. Dieses widerspricht aber dem Begriffe einer Sinnenwelt, die nur ein Inbegriff der Erscheinung ist, deren Dasein und Verknüpfung nur in der Vorstellung, nämlich der Erfahrung, stattfindet, weil sie nicht Sache an sich, sondern selbst nichts als Vorstellungsart ist. Hieraus folgt, daß, da der Begriff einer vor sich existierenden Sinnenwelt in sich selbst widersprechend ist, die Auflösung des Problems, wegen ihrer Größe, auch jederzeit falsch sein werde, man mag sie nun bejahend oder verneinend versuchen.
Eben dieses gilt von der zweiten Antinomie, die die Teilung der Erscheinungen betrifft. Denn diese sind bloße Vorstellungen, und die Teile existieren bloß in der Vorstellung derselben, mithin in der Teilung, d.i. in einer möglichen Erfahrung, darin sie gegeben werden, und jene geht daher nur so weit, als diese reicht. Anzunehmen, daß eine Erscheinung, z.B. die des Körpers, alle Teile vor aller Erfahrung an sich selbst enthalte, zu denen nur immer mögliche Erfahrung gelangen kann, heißt: einer bloßen Erscheinung, die nur in der Erfahrung existieren kann, doch zugleich eine eigene vor Erfahrung vorhergehende Existenz geben, oder zu sagen, daß bloße Vorstellungen da sind, ehe sie in der Vorstellungskraft angetroffen werden, welches sich widerspricht, und mithin auch jede Auflösung der mißverstandnen Aufgabe, man mag darinne behaupten, die Körper bestehen an sich aus unendlich viel Teilen oder einer endlichen Zahl einfacher Teile.
In the first (the mathematical) class of antinomies the falsehood of the assumption consists in representing in one concept something self-contradictory as if it were compatible (i.e., an appearance as an object in itself). But, as to the second (the dynamical) class of antinomies, the falsehood of the representation consists in representing as contradictory what is compatible; so that, as in the former case, the opposed assertions are both false, in this case, on the other hand, where they are opposed to one another by mere misunderstanding, they may both be true.
Any mathematical connexion necessarily presupposes homogeneity of what is connected (in the concept of magnitude), while the dynamical one by no means requires the same. When we have to deal with extended magnitudes, all the parts must be homogeneous with one another and with the whole; whereas, in the connexion of cause and effect, homogeneity may indeed likewise be found, but is not necessary; for the concept of causality (by means of which something is posited through something else quite different from it), at all events, does not require it.
If the objects of the world of sense are taken for things in themselves, and the above laws of nature for the laws of things in themselves, the contradiction would be unavoidable. So also, if the subject of freedom were, like other objects, represented as mere appearance, the contradiction would be just as unavoidable, for the same predicate would at once be affirmed and denied of the same kind of object in the same sense. But if natural necessity is referred merely to appearances, and freedom merely to things in themselves, no contradiction arises, if we at once assume, or admit both kinds of causality, however difficult or impossible it may be to make the latter kind conceivable.
As appearance every effect is an event, or something that happens in time; it must, according to the universal law of nature, be preceded by a determination of the causality of its cause (a state), which follows according to a constant law. But this determination of the cause as causality must likewise be something that takes place or happens; the cause must have begun to act, otherwise no succession between it and the effect could be conceived. Otherwise the effect, as well as the causality of the cause, would have always existed. Therefore the determination of the cause to act must also have originated among appearances, and must consequently, as well as its effect, be an event, which must again have its cause, and so on; hence natural necessity must be the condition, on which effective causes are determined. Whereas if freedom is to be a property of certain causes of appearances, it must, as regards these, which are events, be a faculty of starting them spontaneously, that is, without the causality of the cause itself, and hence without requiring any other ground to determine its start. But then the cause, as to its causality, must not rank under time-determinations of its state, that is, it cannot be an appearance, and must be considered a thing in itself, while its effects would be only appearances.{36} If without contradiction we can think of the beings of understanding [Verstandeswesen] as exercising such an influence on appearances, then natural necessity will attach to all connexions of cause and effect in the sensuous world, though on the other hand, freedom can be granted to such cause, as is itself not an appearance (but the foundation of appearance). Nature therefore and freedom can without contradiction be attributed to the very same thing, but in different relations—on one side as a phenomenon, on the other as a thing in itself.
=================================== {36} The idea of freedom occurs only in the relation of the intellectual, as cause, to the appearance, as effect. Hence we cannot attribute freedom to matter in regard to the incessant action by which it fills its space, though this action takes place from an internal principle. We can likewise find no notion of freedom suitable to purely rational beings, for instance, to God, so far as his action is immanent. For his action, though independent of external determining causes, is determined in his eternal reason, that is, in the divine nature. It is only, if something is to start by an action, and so the effect occurs in the sequence of time, or in the world of sense (e.g., the beginning of the world), that we can put the question, whether the causality of the cause must in its turn have been started, or whether the cause can originate an effect without its causality itself beginning. In the former case the concept of this causality is a concept of natural necessity, in the latter, that of freedom. From this the reader will see, that, as I explained freedom to be the faculty of starting an event spontaneously, I have exactly hit the notion which is the problem of metaphysics. ===================================
We have in us a faculty, which not only stands in connexion with its subjective determining grounds that are the natural causes of its actions, and is so far the faculty of a being that itself belongs to appearances, but is also referred to objective grounds, that are only ideas, so far as they can determine this faculty, a connexion which is expressed by the word ought. This faculty is called reason, and, so far as we consider a being (man) entirely according to this objectively determinable reason, he cannot be considered as a being of sense, but this property is that of a thing in itself, of which we cannot comprehend the possibility—I mean how the ought (which however has never yet taken place) should determine its activity, and can become the cause of actions, whose effect is an appearance in the sensible world. Yet the causality of reason would be freedom with regard to the effects in the sensuous world, so far as we can consider objective grounds, which are themselves ideas, as their determinants. For its action in that case would not depend upon subjective conditions, consequently not upon those of time, and of course not upon the law of nature, which serves to determine them, because grounds of reason give to actions the rule universally, according to principles, without the influence of the circumstances of either time or place.
What I adduce here is merely meant as an example to make the thing intelligible, and does not necessarily belong to our problem, which must be decided from mere concepts, independently of the properties which we meet in the actual world.
Now I may say without contradiction: that all the actions of rational beings, so far as they are appearances (occurring in any experience), are subject to the necessity of nature; but the same actions, as regards merely the rational subject and its faculty of acting according to mere reason, are free. For what is required for the necessity of nature? Nothing more than the determinability of every event in the world of sense according to constant laws, that is, a reference to cause in the appearance; in this process the thing in itself at its foundation and its causality remain unknown. But I say, that the law of nature remains, whether the rational being is the cause of the effects in the sensuous world from reason, that is, through freedom, or whether it does not determine them on grounds of reason. For, if the former is the case, the action is performed according to maxims, the effect of which as appearance is always conform able to constant laws; if the latter is the case, and the action not performed on principles of reason, it is subjected to the empirical laws of the sensibility, and in both cases the effects are connected according to constant laws; more than this we do not require or know concerning natural necessity. But in the former case reason is the cause of these laws of nature, and therefore free; in the latter the effects follow according to mere natural laws of sensibility, because reason does not influence it; but reason itself is not determined on that account by the sensibility, and is therefore free in this case too. Freedom is therefore no hindrance to natural law in appearance, neither does this law abrogate the freedom of the practical use of reason, which is connected with things in themselves, as determining grounds.
Thus practical freedom, viz., the freedom in which reason possesses causality according to objectively determining grounds, is rescued and yet natural necessity is not in the least curtailed with regard to the very same effects, as appearances. The same remarks will serve to explain what we had to say concerning transcendental freedom and its compatibility with natural necessity (in the same subject, but not taken in the same reference). For, as to this, every beginning of the action of a being from objective causes regarded as determining grounds, is always a first start, though the same action is in the series of appearances only a subordinate start, which must be preceded by a state of the cause, which determines it, and is itself determined in the same manner by another immediately preceding. Thus we are able, in rational beings, or in beings generally, so far as their causality is determined in them as things in themselves, to imagine a faculty of beginning from itself a series of states, without falling into contradiction with the laws of nature. For the relation of the action to objective grounds of reason is not a time-relation; in this case that which determines the causality does not precede in time the action, because such determining grounds represent not a reference to objects of sense, e.g., to causes in the appearances, but to determining causes, as things in themselves, which do not rank under conditions of time. And in this way the action, with regard to the causality of reason, can be considered as a first start in respect to the series of appearances, and yet also as a merely subordinate beginning. We may therefore without contradiction consider it in the former aspect as free, but in the latter (in so far as it is merely appearance) as subject to natural necessity.
In der ersten Klasse der Antinomie (der mathematischen) bestand die Falschheit der Voraussetzung darin: daß, was sich widerspricht (nämlich Erscheinung als Sache an sich selbst), als vereinbar in einem Begriffe vorgestellt würde. Was aber die zweite, nämlich dynamische Klasse der Antinomie betrifft, so besteht die Falschheit der Voraussetzung darin: daß, was vereinbar ist, als widersprechend vorgestellt wird, folglich, da im ersteren Falle alle beide einander entgegengesetzte Behauptungen falsch waren, hier wiederum solche, die durch bloßen Mißverstand einander entgegengesetzt werden, alle beide wahr sein können.
Die mathematische Verknüpfung nämlich setzt notwendig Gleichartigkeit des Verknüpften (im Begriffe der Größe) voraus, die dynamische erfordert dieses keinesweges. Wenn es auf die Größe des Ausgedehnten ankommt, so müssen alle Teile unter sich, und mit dem Ganzen gleichartig sein; dagegen in der Verknüpfung der Ursache und Wirkung kann zwar auch Gleichartigkeit angetroffen werden, aber sie ist nicht notwendig; denn der Begriff der Kausalität (vermittelst dessen durch etwas etwas ganz davon Verschiedenes gesetzt wird) erfordert sie wenigstens nicht.
Würden die Gegenstände der Sinnenwelt vor Dinge an sich selbst genommen, und die oben angeführte Naturgesetze vor Gesetze der Dinge an sich selbst, so wäre der Widerspruch unvermeidlich. Eben so, wenn das Subjekt der Freiheit gleich den übrigen Gegenständen als bloße Erscheinung vorgestellt würde, so könnte eben so wohl der Widerspruch nicht vermieden werden, denn es würde eben dasselbe von einerlei Gegenstande in derselben Bedeutung zugleich bejahet und verneinet werden. Ist aber Naturnotwendigkeit bloß auf Erscheinungen bezogen, und Freiheit bloß auf Dinge an sich selbst, so entspringt kein Widerspruch, wenn man gleich beide Arten von Kausalität annimmt, oder zugibt, so schwer oder unmöglich es auch sein möchte, die von der letzteren Art begreiflich zu machen.
In der Erscheinung ist jede Wirkung eine Begebenheit, oder etwas, das in der Zeit geschieht; vor ihr muß, nach dem allgemeinen Naturgesetze, eine Bestimmung der Kausalität ihrer Ursache (ein Zustand derselben) vorhergehen, worauf sie nach einem beständigen Gesetze folgt. Aber diese Bestimmung der Ursache zur Kausalität muß auch etwas sein,wassich eräugnet odergeschieht; die Ursache mußangefangenhaben zuhandeln, denn sonst ließe sich zwischen ihr und der Wirkung keine Zeitfolge denken. Die Wirkung wäre immer gewesen, so wie die Kausalität der Ursache, Also muß unter Erscheinungen dieBestimmungder Ursachezum Wirkenauch entstanden, und mithin eben so wohl, als ihre Wirkung, eine Begebenheit sein, die wiederum ihre Ursache haben muß, u.s.w. und folglich Naturnotwendigkeit die Bedingung sein, nach welcher die wirkende Ursachen bestimmt werden. Soll dagegen Freiheit eine Eigenschaft gewisser Ursachen der Erscheinungen sein, so muß sie, respective auf die letztere, als Begebenheiten, ein Vermögen sein, sievon selbst(sponte) anzufangen, d.i. ohne daß die Kausalität der Ursache selbst anfangen dürfte, und daher keines andern ihren Anfang bestimmenden Grundes benötiget wäre. Alsdenn aber müßtedie Ursache, ihrer Kausalität nach, nicht unter Zeitbestimmungen ihres Zustandes stehen, d.i. garnicht Erscheinungsein, d.i. sie müßte als ein Ding an sich selbst, dieWirkungenaber allein alsErscheinungenangenommen werden.22 Kann man einen solchen Einfluß der Verstandeswesen auf Erscheinungen ohne Widerspruch denken, so wird zwar aller Verknüpfung der Ursache und Wirkung in der Sinnenwelt Naturnotwendigkeit anhangen, dagegen doch derjenigen Ursache, die selbst keine Erscheinung ist (obzwar ihr zum Grunde liegt), Freiheit zugestanden, Natur also und Freiheit eben demselben Dinge, aber in verschiedener Beziehung, einmal als Erscheinung, das andremal als einem Dinge an sich selbst ohne Widerspruch beigelegt werden können.
Wir haben in uns ein Vermögen, welches nicht bloß mit seinen subjektiv bestimmenden Gründen, welche die Naturursachen seiner Handlungen sind, in Verknüpfung steht, und so fern das Vermögen eines Wesens ist, das selbst zu den Erscheinungen gehört, sondern auch auf objektive Gründe, die bloß Ideen sind, bezogen wird, so fern sie dieses Vermögen bestimmen können, welche Verknüpfung durchSollenausgedruckt wird. Dieses Vermögen heißtVernunft, und so fern wir ein Wesen (den Menschen) lediglich nach dieser objektiv bestimmbaren Vernunft betrachten, kann es nicht als ein Sinnenwesen betrachtet werden, sondern die gedachte Eigenschaft ist die Eigenschaft eines Dinges an sich selbst, deren Möglichkeit, wie nämlich dasSollen, was doch noch nie geschehen ist, die Tätigkeit desselben bestimme, und Ursache von Handlungen sein könne, deren Wirkung Erscheinung in der Sinnenwelt ist, wir gar nicht begreifen können. Indessen würde doch die Kausalität der Vernunft in Ansehung der Wirkungen in der Sinnenwelt Freiheit sein, so fernobjektive Gründe, die selbst Ideen sind, in Ansehung ihrer als bestimmend angesehen werden. Denn ihre Handlung hinge alsdann nicht an subjektiven, mithin auch keinen Zeitbedingungen und also auch nicht vom Naturgesetze ab, das diese zu bestimmen dient, weil Gründe der Vernunft allgemein, aus Prinzipien, ohne Einfluß der Umstände der Zeit oder des Orts, Handlungen die Regel geben.
Was ich hier anführe, gilt nur als Beispiel zur Verständlichkeit, und gehört nicht notwendig zu unserer Frage, welche, unabhängig von Eigenschaften, die wir in der wirklichen Welt antreffen, aus bloßen Begriffen entschieden werden muß.
Nun kann ich ohne Widerspruch sagen: alle Handlungen vernünftiger Wesen, so fern sie Erscheinungen sind (in irgend einer Erfahrung angetroffen werden), stehen unter der Naturnotwendigkeit; eben dieselbe Handlungen aber, bloß respective auf das vernünftige Subjekt, und dessen Vermögen, nach bloßer Vernunft zu handeln, sind frei. Denn was wird zur Naturnotwendigkeit erfodert? Nichts weiter als die Bestimmbarkeit jeder Begebenheit der Sinnenwelt, nach beständigen Gesetzen, mithin eine Beziehung auf Ursache in der Erscheinung, wobei das Ding an sich selbst, was zum Grunde liegt, und dessen Kausalität unbekannt bleibt. Ich sage aber:das Naturgesetz bleibt, es mag nun das vernünftige Wesen aus Vernunft, mithin durch Freiheit, Ursache der Wirkungen der Sinnenwelt sein, oder es mag diese auch nicht aus Vernunftgründen bestimmen. Denn, ist das erste, so geschieht die Handlung nach Maximen, deren Wirkung in der Erscheinung jederzeit beständigen Gesetzen gemäß sein wird; ist das zweite, und die Handlung geschieht nicht nach Prinzipien der Vernunft, so ist sie den empirischen Gesetzen der Sinnlichkeit unterworfen, und in beiden Fällen hängen die Wirkungen nach beständigen Gesetzen zusammen; mehr verlangen wir aber nicht zur Naturnotwendigkeit, ja mehr kennen wir an ihr auch nicht. Aber im ersten Falle ist Vernunft die Ursache dieser Naturgesetze, und ist also frei, im zweiten Falle laufen die Wirkungen nach bloßen Naturgesetzen der Sinnlichkeit, darum, weil die Vernunft keinen Einfluß auf sie ausübt: sie, die Vernunft, wird aber darum nicht selbst durch die Sinnlichkeit bestimmt (welches unmöglich ist), und ist daher auch in diesem Falle frei. Die Freiheit hindert also nicht das Naturgesetz der Erscheinungen, so wenig, wie dieses der Freiheit des praktischen Vernunftgebrauchs, der mit Dingen an sich selbst, als bestimmenden Gründen, in Verbindung steht, Abbruch tut.
Hiedurch wird also die praktische Freiheit, nämlich diejenige, in welcher die Vernunft nach objektiv-bestimmenden Gründen Kausalität hat, gerettet, ohne daß der Naturnotwendigkeit in Ansehung eben derselben. Wirkungen, als Erscheinungen, der mindeste Eintrag geschieht. Eben dieses kann auch zur Erläuterung desjenigen, was wir wegen der transzendentalen Freiheit und deren Vereinbarung mit Naturnotwendigkeit (in demselben Subjekte, aber nicht in einer und derselben Beziehung genommen) zu sagen hatten, dienlich sein. Denn was diese betrifft, so ist ein jeder Anfang der Handlung eines Wesens aus objektiven Ursachen, respective auf diese bestimmende Gründe, immer einerster Anfang, obgleich dieselbe Handlung in der Reihe der Erscheinungen nur einsubalterner Anfangist, vor welchem ein Zustand der Ursache vorhergehen muß, der sie bestimmt, und selbst eben so von einer nah vorhergehenden bestimmt wird: so daß man sich an vernünftigen Wesen, oder überhaupt an Wesen, so fern ihre Kausalität in ihnen als Dingen an sich selbst bestimmt wird, ohne in Widerspruch mit Naturgesetzen zu geraten, ein Vermögen denken kann, eine Reihe von Zuständen von selbst anzufangen. Denn das Verhältnis der Handlung zu objektiven Vernunftgründen ist kein Zeitverhältnis: hier geht das, was die Kausalität bestimmt, nicht der Zeit nach vor der Handlung vorher, weil solche bestimmende Gründe nicht Beziehung der Gegenstände auf Sinne, mithin nicht auf Ursachen in der Erscheinung, sondern bestimmende Ursachen, als Dinge an sich selbst, die nicht unter Zeitbedingungen stehen, vorstellen. So kann die Handlung in Ansehung der Kausalität der Vernunft als ein erster Anfang, in Ansehung der Reihe der Erscheinungen aber doch zugleich als ein bloß subordinierter Anfang angesehen, und ohne Widerspruch in jenem Betracht als frei, in diesem (da sie bloß Erscheinung ist) als der Naturnotwendigkeit unterworfen, angesehen werden.
Was dievierteAntinomie betrifft, so wird sie auf die ähnliche Art gehoben, wie der Widerstreit der Vernunft mit sich selbst in der dritten. Denn, wenn dieUrsache in der Erscheinung, nur von derUrsache der Erscheinungen, so fern sie alsDing an sich selbstgedacht werden kann, unterschieden wird, so können beide Sätze wohl neben einander bestehen, nämlich, daß von der Sinnenwelt überall keine Ursache (nach ähnlichen Gesetzen der Kausalität) stattfinde, deren Existenz schlechthin notwendig sei, imgleichen anderer Seits, daß diese Welt dennoch mit einem notwendigen Wesen als ihrer Ursache (aber von anderer Art und nach einem andern Gesetze) verbunden sei; welcher zween Sätze Unverträglichkeit lediglich auf dem Mißverstande beruht, das, was bloß von Erscheinungen gilt, über Dinge an sich selbst, auszudehnen, und überhaupt beide in einem Begriffe zu vermengen.
Page 19 of 27 · Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant , tr. Paul Carus · Project Gutenberg