the critique of pure reason- 第111部分

shall　not　decline　the　challenge　to　detect　the　fallacy　and　destroy

the　pretensions　of　every　attempt　of　speculative　theology。　And　yet

the　hope　of　better　fortune　never　deserts　those　who　are　accustomed　to

the　dogmatical　mode　of　procedure。　I　shall；　therefore；　restrict

myself　to　the　simple　and　equitable　demand　that　such　reasoners　will

demonstrate；　from　the　nature　of　the　human　mind　as　well　as　from　that　of

the　other　sources　of　knowledge；　how　we　are　to　proceed　to　extend　our

cognition　completely　a　priori；　and　to　carry　it　to　that　point　where

experience　abandons　us；　and　no　means　exist　of　guaranteeing　the

objective　reality　of　our　conceptions。　In　whatever　way　the

understanding　may　have　attained　to　a　conception；　the　existence　of

the　object　of　the　conception　cannot　be　discovered　in　it　by　analysis；

because　the　cognition　of　the　existence　of　the　object　depends　upon

the　object's　being　posited　and　given　in　itself　apart　from　the

conception。　But　it　is　utterly　impossible　to　go　beyond　our

conception；　without　the　aid　of　experience…　which　presents　to　the

mind　nothing　but　phenomena；　or　to　attain　by　the　help　of　mere

conceptions　to　a　conviction　of　the　existence　of　new　kinds　of　objects

or　supernatural　beings。

　　But　although　pure　speculative　reason　is　far　from　sufficient　to

demonstrate　the　existence　of　a　Supreme　Being；　it　is　of　the　highest

utility　in　correcting　our　conception　of　this　being…　on　the　supposition

that　we　can　attain　to　the　cognition　of　it　by　some　other　means…　in

making　it　consistent　with　itself　and　with　all　other　conceptions　of

intelligible　objects；　clearing　it　from　all　that　is　incompatible　with

the　conception　of　an　ens　summun；　and　eliminating　from　it　all

limitations　or　admixtures　of　empirical　elements。

　　Transcendental　theology　is　still　therefore；　notwithstanding　its

objective　insufficiency；　of　importance　in　a　negative　respect；　it　is

useful　as　a　test　of　the　procedure　of　reason　when　engaged　with　pure

ideas；　no　other　than　a　transcendental　standard　being　in　this　case

admissible。　For　if；　from　a　practical　point　of　view；　the　hypothesis

of　a　Supreme　and　All…sufficient　Being　is　to　maintain　its　validity

without　opposition；　it　must　be　of　the　highest　importance　to　define

this　conception　in　a　correct　and　rigorous　manner…　as　the

transcendental　conception　of　a　necessary　being；　to　eliminate　all

phenomenal　elements　（anthropomorphism　in　its　most　extended

signification）；　and　at　the　same　time　to　overflow　all　contradictory

assertions…　be　they　atheistic；　deistic；　or　anthropomorphic。　This　is　of

course　very　easy；　as　the　same　arguments　which　demonstrated　the

inability　of　human　reason　to　affirm　the　existence　of　a　Supreme　Being

must　be　alike　sufficient　to　prove　the　invalidity　of　its　denial。　For　it

is　impossible　to　gain　from　the　pure　speculation　of　reason

demonstration　that　there　exists　no　Supreme　Being；　as　the　ground　of　all

that　exists；　or　that　this　being　possesses　none　of　those　properties

which　we　regard　as　analogical　with　the　dynamical　qualities　of　a

thinking　being；　or　that；　as　the　anthropomorphists　would　have　us

believe；　it　is　subject　to　all　the　limitations　which　sensibility

imposes　upon　those　intelligences　which　exist　in　the　world　of

experience。

　　A　Supreme　Being　is；　therefore；　for　the　speculative　reason；　a　mere

ideal；　though　a　faultless　one…　a　conception　which　perfects　and

crowns　the　system　of　human　cognition；　but　the　objective　reality　of

which　can　neither　be　proved　nor　disproved　by　pure　reason。　If　this

defect　is　ever　supplied　by　a　moral　theology；　the　problematic

transcendental　theology　which　has　preceded；　will　have　been　at　least

serviceable　as　demonstrating　the　mental　necessity　existing　for　the

conception；　by　the　complete　determination　of　it　which　it　has

furnished；　and　the　ceaseless　testing　of　the　conclusions　of　a　reason

often　deceived　by　sense；　and　not　always　in　harmony　with　its　own　ideas。

The　attributes　of　necessity；　infinitude；　unity；　existence　apart　from

the　world　（and　not　as　a　world　soul）；　eternity　（free　from　conditions　of

time）；　omnipresence　（free　from　conditions　of　space）；　omnipotence；

and　others；　are　pure　transcendental　predicates；　and　thus　the

accurate　conception　of　a　Supreme　Being；　which　every　theology　requires；

is　furnished　by　transcendental　theology　alone。

APPENDIX

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　APPENDIX。



　　　　　　　　Of　the　Regulative　Employment　of　the　Ideas　of

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Pure　Reason。



　　The　result　of　all　the　dialectical　attempts　of　pure　reason　not　only

confirms　the　truth　of　what　we　have　already　proved　in　our

Transcendental　Analytic；　namely；　that　all　inferences　which　would

lead　us　beyond　the　limits　of　experience　are　fallacious　and　groundless；

but　it　at　the　same　time　teaches　us　this　important　lesson；　that　human

reason　has　a　natural　inclination　to　overstep　these　limits；　and　that

transcendental　ideas　are　as　much　the　natural　property　of　the　reason　as

categories　are　of　the　understanding。　There　exists　this　difference；

however；　that　while　the　categories　never　mislead　us；　outward　objects

being　always　in　perfect　harmony　therewith；　ideas　are　the　parents　of

irresistible　illusions；　the　severest　and　most　subtle　criticism　being

required　to　save　us　from　the　fallacies　which　they　induce。

　　Whatever　is　grounded　in　the　nature　of　our　powers　will　be　found　to　be

in　harmony　with　the　final　purpose　and　proper　employment　of　these

powers；　when　once　we　have　discovered　their　true　direction　and　aim。

We　are　entitled　to　suppose；　therefore；　that　there　exists　a　mode　of

employing　transcendental　ideas　which　is　proper　and　immanent；　although；

when　we　mistake　their　meaning；　and　regard　them　as　conceptions　of

actual　things；　their　mode　of　application　is　transcendent　and　delusive。

For　it　is　not　the　idea　itself；　but　only　the　employment　of　the　idea

in　relation　to　possible　experience；　that　is　transcendent　or

immanent。　An　idea　is　employed　transcendently；　when　it　is　applied　to　an

object　falsely　believed　to　be　adequate　with　and　to　correspond　to　it；

imminently；　when　it　is　applied　solely　to　the　employment　of　the

understanding　in　the　sphere　of　experience。　Thus　all　errors　of

subreptio…　of　misapplication；　are　to　be　ascribed　to　defects　of

judgement；　and　not　to　understanding　or　reason。

　　Reason　never　has　an　immediate　relation　to　an　object；　it　relates

immediately　to　the　understanding　alone。　It　is　only　through　the

understanding　that　it　can　be　employed　in　the　field　of　experience。　It

does　not　form　conceptions　of　objects；　it　merely　arranges　them　and

gives　to　them　that　unity　which　they　are　capable　of　possessing　when　the

sphere　of　their　application　has　been　extended　as　widely　as　possible。

Reason　avails　itself　of　the　conception　of　the　understanding　for　the

sole　purpose　of　producing　totality　in　the　different　series。　This

totality　the　understanding　does　not　concern　itself　with；　its　only

occupation　is　the　connection　of　experiences；　by　which　series　of

conditions　in　accordance　with　conceptions　are　established。　The

object　of　reason　is；　therefore；　the　understanding　and　its　proper

destination。　As　the　latter　brings　unity　into　the　diversity　of

objects　by　means　of　its　conceptions；　so　the　former　brings　unity　into

the　diversity　of　conceptions　by　means　of　ideas；　as　it　sets　the　final

aim　of　a　collective　unity　to　the　operations　of　the　understanding；

which　without　this　occupies　itself　with　a　distributive　unity　alone。

　　I　accordingly　maintain　that　transcendental　ideas　can　never　be

employed　as　constitutive　ideas；　that　they　cannot　be　conceptions　of

objects；　and　that；　when　thus　considered；　they　assume　a　fallacious

and　dialectical　character。　But；　on　the　other　hand；　they　are　capable　of

an　admirable　and　indispensably　necessary　application　to　objects…　as

regulative　ideas；　directing　the　understanding　to　a　certain　aim；　the

guiding　lines　towards　which　all　its　laws　follow；　and　in　which　they　all

meet　in　one　point。　This　point…　though　a　mere　idea　（focus　imaginarius）；

that　is；　not　a　point　from　which　the　conceptions　of　the　understanding

do　really　proceed；　for　it　lies　beyond　the　sphere　of　possible

experience…　serves；　notwithstanding；　to　give　to　these　conceptions

the　greatest　possible　unity　combined　with　the　greatest　possible

extension。　Hence　arises　the　natural　illusion　which　induces　us　to

believe　that　these　lines　proceed　from　an　object　which　lies　out　of

the　sphere　of　empirical　cognition；　just　as　objects　reflected　in　a

mirror　appear　to　be　behind　it。　But　this　illusion…　which　we　may

hinder　from　imposing　upon　us…　is　necessary　and　unavoidable；　if　we

desire　to　see；　not　only　those　objects　which　lie　before　us；　but　those

which　are　at　a　great　distance　behind　us；　that　is　to　say；　when；　in

the　present　case；　we　direct　the　aims　of　the　understanding；　beyond

every　given　experience；　towards　an　extension　as　great　as　can

possibly　be　attained。

　　If　we　review　our　cognitions　in　their　entire　extent；　we　shall　find

that　the　peculiar　business　of　reason　is　to　arrange　them　into　a　system；

that　is　to　say；　to　give　them　connection　according　to　a　principle。　This

unity　presuppos