按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
that is to say； to give them connection according to a principle。 This
unity presupposes an idea… the idea of the form of a whole （of
cognition）； preceding the determinate cognition of the parts； and
containing the conditions which determine a priori to every part its
place and relation to the other parts of the whole system。 This
idea； accordingly； demands complete unity in the cognition of the
understanding… not the unity of a contingent aggregate； but that of
a system connected according to necessary laws。 It cannot be
affirmed with propriety that this idea is a conception of an object；
it is merely a conception of the complete unity of the conceptions
of objects； in so far as this unity is available to the
understanding as a rule。 Such conceptions of reason are not derived
from nature； on the contrary； we employ them for the interrogation and
investigation of nature； and regard our cognition as defective so long
as it is not adequate to them。 We admit that such a thing as pure
earth； pure water； or pure air； is not to be discovered。 And yet we
require these conceptions （which have their origin in the reason； so
far as regards their absolute purity and completeness） for the purpose
of determining the share which each of these natural causes has in
every phenomenon。 Thus the different kinds of matter are all ref erred
to earths； as mere weight； to salts and inflammable bodies； as pure
force； and finally； to water and air； as the vehicula of the former；
or the machines employed by them in their operations… for the
purpose of explaining the chemical action and reaction of bodies in
accordance with the idea of a mechanism。 For； although not actually so
expressed； the influence of such ideas of reason is very observable in
the procedure of natural philosophers。
If reason is the faculty of deducing the particular from the
general； and if the general be certain in se and given； it is only
necessary that the judgement should subsume the particular under the
general； the particular being thus necessarily determined。 I shall
term this the demonstrative or apodeictic employment of reason。 If；
however； the general is admitted as problematical only； and is a
mere idea； the particular case is certain； but the universality of the
rule which applies to this particular case remains a problem。
Several particular cases； the certainty of which is beyond doubt；
are then taken and examined； for the purpose of discovering whether
the rule is applicable to them； and if it appears that all the
particular cases which can be collected follow from the rule； its
universality is inferred； and at the same time； all the causes which
have not； or cannot be presented to our observation； are concluded
to be of the same character with those which we have observed。 This
I shall term the hypothetical employment of the reason。
The hypothetical exercise of reason by the aid of ideas employed
as problematical conceptions is properly not constitutive。 That is
to say； if we consider the subject strictly； the truth of the rule；
which has been employed as an hypothesis； does not follow from the use
that is made of it by reason。 For how can we know all the possible
cases that may arise？ some of which may； however； prove exceptions
to the universality of the rule。 This employment of reason is merely
regulative； and its sole aim is the introduction of unity into the
aggregate of our particular cognitions； and thereby the
approximating of the rule to universality。
The object of the hypothetical employment of reason is therefore the
systematic unity of cognitions； and this unity is the criterion of the
truth of a rule。 On the other hand； this systematic unity… as a mere
idea… is in fact merely a unity projected； not to be regarded as
given； but only in the light of a problem… a problem which serves；
however； as a principle for the various and particular exercise of the
understanding in experience； directs it with regard to those cases
which are not presented to our observation； and introduces harmony and
consistency into all its operations。
All that we can be certain of from the above considerations is
that this systematic unity is a logical principle； whose aim is to
assist the understanding； where it cannot of itself attain to rules；
by means of ideas； to bring all these various rules under one
principle； and thus to ensure the most complete consistency and
connection that can be attained。 But the assertion that objects and
the understanding by which they are cognized are so constituted as
to be determined to systematic unity； that this may be postulated a
priori； without any reference to the interest of reason； and that we
are justified in declaring all possible cognitions… empirical and
others… to possess systematic unity； and to be subject to general
principles from which； notwithstanding their various character； they
are all derivable such an assertion can be founded only upon a
transcendental principle of reason； which would render this systematic
unity not subjectively and logically… in its character of a method；
but objectively necessary。
We shall illustrate this by an example。 The conceptions of the
understanding make us acquainted； among many other kinds of unity；
with that of the causality of a substance； which is termed power。
The different phenomenal manifestations of the same substance appear
at first view to be so very dissimilar that we are inclined to
assume the existence of just as many different powers as there are
different effects… as； in the case of the human mind； we have feeling；
consciousness； imagination； memory； wit； analysis； pleasure； desire
and so on。 Now we are required by a logical maxim to reduce these
differences to as small a number as possible； by comparing them and
discovering the hidden identity which exists。 We must inquire； for
example； whether or not imagination （connected with consciousness）；
memory； wit； and analysis are not merely different forms of
understanding and reason。 The idea of a fundamental power； the
existence of which no effort of logic can assure us of； is the problem
to be solved； for the systematic representation of the existing
variety of powers。 The logical principle of reason requires us to
produce as great a unity as is possible in the system of our
cognitions； and the more the phenomena of this and the other power are
found to be identical； the more probable does it become； that they are
nothing but different manifestations of one and the same power；
which may be called； relatively speaking； a fundamental power。 And
so with other cases。
These relatively fundamental powers must again be compared with each
other； to discover； if possible； the one radical and absolutely
fundamental power of which they are but the manifestations。 But this
unity is purely hypothetical。 It is not maintained； that this unity
does really exist； but that we must； in the interest of reason； that
is； for the establishment of principles for the various rules
presented by experience； try to discover and introduce it； so far as
is practicable； into the sphere of our cognitions。
But the transcendental employment of the understanding would lead us
to believe that this idea of a fundamental power is not problematical；
but that it possesses objective reality； and thus the systematic unity
of the various powers or forces in a substance is demanded by the
understanding and erected into an apodeictic or necessary principle。
For； without having attempted to discover the unity of the various
powers existing in nature； nay； even after all our attempts have
failed； we notwithstanding presuppose that it does exist； and may
be； sooner or later； discovered。 And this reason does； not only； as in
the case above adduced； with regard to the unity of substance； but
where many substances； although all to a certain extent homogeneous；
are discoverable； as in the case of matter in general。 Here also
does reason presuppose the existence of the systematic unity of
various powers… inasmuch as particular laws of nature are
subordinate to general laws； and parsimony in principles is not merely
an economical principle of reason； but an essential law of nature。
We cannot understand； in fact； how a logical principle of unity
can of right exist； unless we presuppose a transcendental principle；
by which such a systematic unit… as a property of objects
themselves… is regarded as necessary a priori。 For with what right can
reason； in its logical exercise； require us to regard the variety of
forces which nature displays； as in effect a disguised unity； and to
deduce them from one fundamental force or power； when she is free to
admit that it is just as possible that all forces should be
different in kind； and that a systematic unity is not conformable to
the design of nature？ In this view of the case； reason would be
proceeding in direct opposition to her own destination；