the critique of pure reason- 第80部分

world　nothing　that　is　simple…　is　here　equivalent　to　the　following：　The

existence　of　the　absolutely　simple　cannot　be　demonstrated　from　any

experience　or　perception　either　external　or　internal；　and　the

absolutely　simple　is　a　mere　idea；　the　objective　reality　of　which

cannot　be　demonstrated　in　any　possible　experience；　it　is　consequently；

in　the　exposition　of　phenomena；　without　application　and　object。　For；

let　us　take　for　granted　that　an　object　may　be　found　in　experience

for　this　transcendental　idea；　the　empirical　intuition　of　such　an

object　must　then　be　recognized　to　contain　absolutely　no　manifold

with　its　parts　external　to　each　other；　and　connected　into　unity。

Now；　as　we　cannot　reason　from　the　non…consciousness　of　such　a　manifold

to　the　impossibility　of　its　existence　in　the　intuition　of　an　object；

and　as　the　proof　of　this　impossibility　is　necessary　for　the

establishment　and　proof　of　absolute　simplicity；　it　follows　that　this

simplicity　cannot　be　inferred　from　any　perception　whatever。　As；

therefore；　an　absolutely　simple　object　cannot　be　given　in　any

experience；　and　the　world　of　sense　must　be　considered　as　the　sum　total

of　all　possible　experiences：　nothing　simple　exists　in　the　world。

　　This　second　proposition　in　the　antithesis　has　a　more　extended　aim

than　the　first。　The　first　merely　banishes　the　simple　from　the

intuition　of　the　composite；　while　the　second　drives　it　entirely　out　of

nature。　Hence　we　were　unable　to　demonstrate　it　from　the　conception

of　a　given　object　of　external　intuition　（of　the　composite）；　but　we

were　obliged　to　prove　it　from　the　relation　of　a　given　object　to　a

possible　experience　in　general。





　　　　　　　　　　　　OBSERVATIONS　ON　THE　SECOND　ANTINOMY。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　THESIS。



　　When　I　speak　of　a　whole；　which　necessarily　consists　of　simple　parts；

I　understand　thereby　only　a　substantial　whole；　as　the　true

composite；　that　is　to　say；　I　understand　that　contingent　unity　of　the

manifold　which　is　given　as　perfectly　isolated　（at　least　in　thought）；

placed　in　reciprocal　connection；　and　thus　constituted　a　unity。　Space

ought　not　to　be　called　a　compositum　but　a　totum；　for　its　parts　are

possible　in　the　whole；　and　not　the　whole　by　means　of　the　parts。　It

might　perhaps　be　called　a　compositum　ideale；　but　not　a　compositum

reale。　But　this　is　of　no　importance。　As　space　is　not　a　composite　of

substances　（and　not　even　of　real　accidents）；　if　I　abstract　all

composition　therein…　nothing；　not　even　a　point；　remains；　for　a　point

is　possible　only　as　the　limit　of　a　space…　consequently　of　a　composite。

Space　and　time；　therefore；　do　not　consist　of　simple　parts。　That

which　belongs　only　to　the　condition　or　state　of　a　substance；　even

although　it　possesses　a　quantity　（motion　or　change；　for　example）；

likewise　does　not　consist　of　simple　parts。　That　is　to　say；　a　certain

degree　of　change　does　not　originate　from　the　addition　of　many　simple

changes。　Our　inference　of　the　simple　from　the　composite　is　valid

only　of　self…subsisting　things。　But　the　accidents　of　a　state　are　not

self…subsistent。　The　proof；　then；　for　the　necessity　of　the　simple；

as　the　component　part　of　all　that　is　substantial　and　composite；　may

prove　a　failure；　and　the　whole　case　of　this　thesis　be　lost；　if　we

carry　the　proposition　too　far；　and　wish　to　make　it　valid　of　everything

that　is　composite　without　distinction…　as　indeed　has　really　now　and

then　happened。　Besides；　I　am　here　speaking　only　of　the　simple；　in　so

far　as　it　is　necessarily　given　in　the　composite…　the　latter　being

capable　of　solution　into　the　former　as　its　component　parts。　The　proper

signification　of　the　word　monas　（as　employed　by　Leibnitz）　ought　to

relate　to　the　simple；　given　immediately　as　simple　substance　（for

example；　in　consciousness）；　and　not　as　an　element　of　the　composite。　As

an　clement；　the　term　atomus　would　be　more　appropriate。　And　as　I　wish

to　prove　the　existence　of　simple　substances；　only　in　relation　to；

and　as　the　elements　of；　the　composite；　I　might　term　the　antithesis

of　the　second　Antinomy；　transcendental　Atomistic。　But　as　this　word　has

long　been　employed　to　designate　a　particular　theory　of　corporeal

phenomena　（moleculae）；　and　thus　presupposes　a　basis　of　empirical

conceptions；　I　prefer　calling　it　the　dialectical　principle　of

Monadology。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ANTITHESIS。



　　Against　the　assertion　of　the　infinite　subdivisibility　of　matter

whose　ground　of　proof　is　purely　mathematical；　objections　have　been

alleged　by　the　Monadists。　These　objections　lay　themselves　open；　at

first　sight；　to　suspicion；　from　the　fact　that　they　do　not　recognize

the　clearest　mathematical　proofs　as　propositions　relating　to　the

constitution　of　space；　in　so　far　as　it　is　really　the　formal

condition　of　the　possibility　of　all　matter；　but　regard　them　merely

as　inferences　from　abstract　but　arbitrary　conceptions；　which　cannot

have　any　application　to　real　things。　just　as　if　it　were　possible　to

imagine　another　mode　of　intuition　than　that　given　in　the　primitive

intuition　of　space；　and　just　as　if　its　a　priori　determinations　did　not

apply　to　everything；　the　existence　of　which　is　possible；　from　the　fact

alone　of　its　filling　space。　If　we　listen　to　them；　we　shall　find

ourselves　required　to　cogitate；　in　addition　to　the　mathematical　point；

which　is　simple…　not；　however；　a　part；　but　a　mere　limit　of　space…

physical　points；　which　are　indeed　likewise　simple；　but　possess　the

peculiar　property；　as　parts　of　space；　of　filling　it　merely　by　their

aggregation。　I　shall　not　repeat　here　the　common　and　clear

refutations　of　this　absurdity；　which　are　to　be　found　everywhere　in

numbers：　every　one　knows　that　it　is　impossible　to　undermine　the

evidence　of　mathematics　by　mere　discursive　conceptions；　I　shall　only

remark　that；　if　in　this　case　philosophy　endeavours　to　gain　an

advantage　over　mathematics　by　sophistical　artifices；　it　is　because

it　forgets　that　the　discussion　relates　solely　to　Phenomena　and　their

conditions。　It　is　not　sufficient　to　find　the　conception　of　the

simple　for　the　pure　conception　of　the　composite；　but　we　must

discover　for　the　intuition　of　the　composite　（matter）；　the　intuition　of

the　simple。　Now　this；　according　to　the　laws　of　sensibility；　and

consequently　in　the　case　of　objects　of　sense；　is　utterly　impossible。

In　the　case　of　a　whole　composed　of　substances；　which　is　cogitated

solely　by　the　pure　understanding；　it　may　be　necessary　to　be　in

possession　of　the　simple　before　composition　is　possible。　But　this　does

not　hold　good　of　the　Totum　substantiale　phaenomenon；　which；　as　an

empirical　intuition　in　space；　possesses　the　necessary　property　of

containing　no　simple　part；　for　the　very　reason　that　no　part　of　space

is　simple。　Meanwhile；　the　Monadists　have　been　subtle　enough　to

escape　from　this　difficulty；　by　presupposing　intuition　and　the

dynamical　relation　of　substances　as　the　condition　of　the　possibility

of　space；　instead　of　regarding　space　as　the　condition　of　the

possibility　of　the　objects　of　external　intuition；　that　is；　of

bodies。　Now　we　have　a　conception　of　bodies　only　as　phenomena；　and；

as　such；　they　necessarily　presuppose　space　as　the　condition　of　all

external　phenomena。　The　evasion　is　therefore　in　vain；　as；　indeed；　we

have　sufficiently　shown　in　our　Aesthetic。　If　bodies　were　things　in

themselves；　the　proof　of　the　Monadists　would　be　unexceptionable。

　　The　second　dialectical　assertion　possesses　the　peculiarity　of　having

opposed　to　it　a　dogmatical　proposition；　which；　among　all　such

sophistical　statements；　is　the　only　one　that　undertakes　to　prove　in

the　case　of　an　object　of　experience；　that　which　is　properly　a

transcendental　idea…　the　absolute　simplicity　of　substance。　The

proposition　is　that　the　object　of　the　internal　sense；　the　thinking

Ego；　is　an　absolute　simple　substance。　Without　at　present　entering　upon

this　subject…　as　it　has　been　considered　at　length　in　a　former　chapter…

I　shall　merely　remark　that；　if　something　is　cogitated　merely　as　an

object；　without　the　addition　of　any　synthetical　determination　of　its

intuition…　as　happens　in　the　case　of　the　bare　representation；　I…　it　is

certain　that　no　manifold　and　no　composition　can　be　perceived　in　such　a

representation。　As；　moreover；　the　predicates　whereby　I　cogitate　this

object　are　merely　intuitions　of　the　internal　sense；　there　cannot　be

discovered　in　them　anything　to　prove　the　existence　of　a　manifold　whose

parts　are　external　to　each　other；　and；　consequently；　nothing　to

prove　the　existence　of　real　composition。　Consciousness；　therefore；

is　so　constituted　that；　inasmuch　as　the　thinking　subject　is　at　the

same　time　its　own　object；　it　cannot　divide　itself…　although　it　can

divide　its　inhering　determinations。　For　every　object　in　relation　to

itself　is　absolute　unity。　Nevertheless；　if　the　subject　is　regarded

externally；　as　an　object　of　intuition；　it　must；　in　its　character　of

phenomenon；　possess　the　property　of　composition。　And　it　must　always　be

regarded　in　this　manner；　if　we　wish　to　know　whether　there　is　or　is　not

contained　in　it　a　manifo