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！
been already learned； can spring up in the mind。
All rational cognition is； again； based either on conceptions； or on
the construction of conceptions。 The former is termed philosophical；
the latter mathematical。 I have already shown the essential difference
of these two methods of cognition in the first chapter。 A cognition
may be objectively philosophical and subjectively historical… as is
the case with the majority of scholars and those who cannot look
beyond the limits of their system； and who remain in a state of
pupilage all their lives。 But it is remarkable that mathematical
knowledge； when committed to memory； is valid； from the subjective
point of view； as rational knowledge also； and that the same
distinction cannot be drawn here as in the case of philosophical
cognition。 The reason is that the only way of arriving at this
knowledge is through the essential principles of reason； and thus it
is always certain and indisputable； because reason is employed in
concreto… but at the same time a priori… that is； in pure and；
therefore； infallible intuition； and thus all causes of illusion and
error are excluded。 Of all the a priori sciences of reason； therefore；
mathematics alone can be learned。 Philosophy… unless it be in an
historical manner… cannot be learned； we can at most learn to
philosophize。
Philosophy is the system of all philosophical cognition。 We must use
this term in an objective sense； if we understand by it the
archetype of all attempts at philosophizing； and the standard by which
all subjective philosophies are to be judged。 In this sense；
philosophy is merely the idea of a possible science； which does not
exist in concreto； but to which we endeavour in various ways to
approximate； until we have discovered the right path to pursue… a path
overgrown by the errors and illusions of sense… and the image we
have hitherto tried in vain to shape has become a perfect copy of
the great prototype。 Until that time； we cannot learn philosophy… it
does not exist； if it does； where is it； who possesses it； and how
shall we know it？ We can only learn to philosophize； in other words；
we can only exercise our powers of reasoning in accordance with
general principles； retaining at the same time； the right of
investigating the sources of these principles； of testing； and even of
rejecting them。
Until then； our conception of philosophy is only a scholastic
conception… a conception； that is； of a system of cognition which we
are trying to elaborate into a science； all that we at present know
being the systematic unity of this cognition； and consequently the
logical completeness of the cognition for the desired end。 But there
is also a cosmical conception （conceptus cosmicus） of philosophy；
which has always formed the true basis of this term； especially when
philosophy was personified and presented to us in the ideal of a
philosopher。 In this view philosophy is the science of the relation of
all cognition to the ultimate and essential aims of human reason
（teleologia rationis humanae）； and the philosopher is not merely an
artist… who occupies himself with conceptions… but a lawgiver；
legislating for human reason。 In this sense of the word； it would be
in the highest degree arrogant to assume the title of philosopher； and
to pretend that we had reached the perfection of the prototype which
lies in the idea alone。
The mathematician； the natural philosopher； and the logician… how
far soever the first may have advanced in rational； and the two latter
in philosophical knowledge… are merely artists； engaged in the
arrangement and formation of conceptions； they cannot be termed
philosophers。 Above them all； there is the ideal teacher； who
employs them as instruments for the advancement of the essential
aims of human reason。 Him alone can we call philosopher； but he
nowhere exists。 But the idea of his legislative power resides in the
mind of every man； and it alone teaches us what kind of systematic
unity philosophy demands in view of the ultimate aims of reason。
This idea is； therefore； a cosmical conception。*
*By a cosmical conception； I mean one in which all men necessarily
take an interest； the aim of a science must accordingly be
determined according to scholastic conceptions； if it is regarded
merely as a means to certain arbitrarily proposed ends。
In view of the complete systematic unity of reason； there can only
be one ultimate end of all the operations of the mind。 To this all
other aims are subordinate； and nothing more than means for its
attainment。 This ultimate end is the destination of man； and the
philosophy which relates to it is termed moral philosophy。 The
superior position occupied by moral philosophy； above all other
spheres for the operations of reason； sufficiently indicates the
reason why the ancients always included the idea… and in an especial
manner… of moralist in that of philosopher。 Even at the present day；
we call a man who appears to have the power of self…government； even
although his knowledge may be very limited； by the name of
philosopher。
The legislation of human reason； or philosophy； has two objects…
nature and freedom… and thus contains not only the laws of nature； but
also those of ethics； at first in two separate systems； which；
finally； merge into one grand philosophical system of cognition。 The
philosophy of nature relates to that which is； that of ethics to
that which ought to be。
But all philosophy is either cognition on the basis of pure
reason； or the cognition of reason on the basis of empirical
principles。 The former is termed pure； the latter empirical
philosophy。
The philosophy of pure reason is either propaedeutic； that is； an
inquiry into the powers of reason in regard to pure a priori
cognition； and is termed critical philosophy； or it is； secondly；
the system of pure reason… a science containing the systematic
presentation of the whole body of philosophical knowledge； true as
well as illusory； given by pure reason… and is called metaphysic。 This
name may； however； be also given to the whole system of pure
philosophy； critical philosophy included； and may designate the
investigation into the sources or possibility of a priori cognition；
as well as the presentation of the a priori cognitions which form a
system of pure philosophy… excluding； at the same time； all
empirical and mathematical elements。
Metaphysic is divided into that of the speculative and that of the
practical use of pure reason； and is； accordingly； either the
metaphysic of nature； or the metaphysic of ethics。 The former contains
all the pure rational principles… based upon conceptions alone （and
thus excluding mathematics）… of all theoretical cognition； the latter；
the principles which determine and necessitate a priori all action。
Now moral philosophy alone contains a code of laws… for the regulation
of our actions… which are deduced from principles entirely a priori。
Hence the metaphysic of ethics is the only pure moral philosophy； as
it is not based upon anthropological or other empirical
considerations。 The metaphysic of speculative reason is what is
commonly called metaphysic in the more limited sense。 But as pure
moral philosophy properly forms a part of this system of cognition； we
must allow it to retain the name of metaphysic； although it is not
requisite that we should insist on so terming it in our present
discussion。
It is of the highest importance to separate those cognitions which
differ from others both in kind and in origin； and to take great
care that they are not confounded with those with which they are
generally found connected。 What the chemist does in the analysis of
substances； what the mathematician in pure mathematics； is； in a still
higher degree； the duty of the philosopher； that the value of each
different kind of cognition； and the part it takes in the operations
of the mind； may be clearly defined。 Human reason has never wanted a
metaphysic of some kind； since it attained the power of thought； or
rather of reflection； but it has never been able to keep this sphere
of thought and cognition pure from all admixture of foreign
elements。 The idea of a science of this kind is as old as
speculation itself； and what mind does not speculate… either in the
scholastic or in the popular fashion？ At the same time； it must be
admitted that even thinkers by profession have been unable clearly
to explain the distinction between the two elements of our
cognition… the one completely a priori； the other a posteriori； and
hence the proper definition of a peculiar kind of cognition； and
with it the just idea of a science which has so long and so deeply
engaged the attention of the human mind； has never been established。
When it was said： 〃Metaphysic is the science of the first principles
of human cognition；〃 this definition did not signalize a peculiarity
in kind； but only a diff