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！
others spring； are those of inherence； consequence； and composition。
These； then； are the three analogies of experience。 They are nothing
more than principles of the determination of the existence of
phenomena in time； according to the three modi of this
determination； to wit； the relation to time itself as a quantity
（the quantity of existence； that is； duration）； the relation in time
as a series or succession； finally； the relation in time as the
complex of all existence （simultaneity）。 This unity of determination
in regard to time is thoroughly dynamical； that is to say； time is not
considered as that in which experience determines immediately to every
existence its position； for this is impossible； inasmuch as absolute
time is not an object of perception； by means of which phenomena can
be connected with each other。 On the contrary； the rule of the
understanding； through which alone the existence of phenomena can
receive synthetical unity as regards relations of time； determines for
every phenomenon its position in time； and consequently a priori；
and with validity for all and every time。
By nature； in the empirical sense of the word； we understand the
totality of phenomena connected； in respect of their existence；
according to necessary rules； that is； laws。 There are therefore
certain laws （which are moreover a priori） which make nature possible；
and all empirical laws can exist only by means of experience； and by
virtue of those primitive laws through which experience itself becomes
possible。 The purpose of the analogies is therefore to represent to us
the unity of nature in the connection of all phenomena under certain
exponents； the only business of which is to express the relation of
time （in so far as it contains all existence in itself） to the unity
of apperception； which can exist in synthesis only according to rules。
The combined expression of all is this： 〃All phenomena exist in one
nature； and must so exist； inasmuch as without this a priori unity； no
unity of experience； and consequently no determination of objects in
experience； is possible。〃
As regards the mode of proof which we have employed in treating of
these transcendental laws of nature； and the peculiar character of
we must make one remark； which will at the same time be important as a
guide in every other attempt to demonstrate the truth of
intellectual and likewise synthetical propositions a priori。 Had we
endeavoured to prove these analogies dogmatically； that is； from
conceptions； that is to say； had we employed this method in attempting
to show that everything which exists； exists only in that which is
permanent… that every thing or event presupposes the existence of
something in a preceding state； upon which it follows in conformity
with a rule… lastly； that in the manifold； which is coexistent； the
states coexist in connection with each other according to a rule…
all our labour would have been utterly in vain。 For more conceptions
of things； analyse them as we may； cannot enable us to conclude from
the existence of one object to the existence of another。 What other
course was left for us to pursue？ This only； to demonstrate the
possibility of experience as a cognition in which at last all
objects must be capable of being presented to us； if the
representation of them is to possess any objective reality。 Now in
this third； this mediating term； the essential form of which
consists in the synthetical unity of the apperception of all
phenomena； we found a priori conditions of the universal and necessary
determination as to time of all existences in the world of
phenomena； without which the empirical determination thereof as to
time would itself be impossible； and we also discovered rules of
synthetical unity a priori； by means of which we could anticipate
experience。 For want of this method； and from the fancy that it was
possible to discover a dogmatical proof of the synthetical
propositions which are requisite in the empirical employment of the
understanding； has it happened that a proof of the principle of
sufficient reason has been so often attempted； and always in vain。 The
other two analogies nobody has ever thought of； although they have
always been silently employed by the mind；* because the guiding thread
furnished by the categories was wanting； the guide which alone can
enable us to discover every hiatus； both in the system of
conceptions and of principles。
*The unity of the universe； in which all phenomena to be
connected； is evidently a mere consequence of the admitted principle
of the community of all substances which are coexistent。 For were
substances isolated； they could not as parts constitute a whole； and
were their connection （reciprocal action of the manifold） not
necessary from the very fact of coexistence； we could not conclude
from the fact of the latter as a merely ideal relation to the former
as a real one。 We have； however； shown in its place that community
is the proper ground of the possibility of an empirical cognition of
coexistence； and that we may therefore properly reason from the latter
to the former as its condition。
4。 THE POSTULATES OF EMPIRICAL THOUGHT。
1。 That which agrees with the formal conditions （intuition and
conception） of experience； is possible。
2。 That which coheres with the material conditions of experience
（sensation）； is real。
3。 That whose coherence with the real is determined according to
universal conditions of experience is （exists） necessary。
Explanation。
The categories of modality possess this peculiarity； that they do
not in the least determine the object； or enlarge the conception to
which they are annexed as predicates； but only express its relation to
the faculty of cognition。 Though my conception of a thing is in itself
complete； I am still entitled to ask whether the object of it is
merely possible； or whether it is also real； or； if the latter；
whether it is also necessary。 But hereby the object itself is not more
definitely determined in thought； but the question is only in what
relation it； including all its determinations； stands to the
understanding and its employment in experience； to the empirical
faculty of judgement； and to the reason of its application to
experience。
For this very reason； too； the categories of modality are nothing
more than explanations of the conceptions of possibility； reality； and
necessity； as employed in experience； and at the same time；
restrictions of all the categories to empirical use alone； not
authorizing the transcendental employment of them。 For if they are
to have something more than a merely logical significance； and to be
something more than a mere analytical expression of the form of
thought； and to have a relation to things and their possibility；
reality； or necessity； they must concern possible experience and its
synthetical unity； in which alone objects of cognition can be given。
The postulate of the possibility of things requires also； that the
conception of the things agree with the formal conditions of our
experience in general。 But this； that is to say； the objective form of
experience； contains all the kinds of synthesis which are requisite
for the cognition of objects。 A conception which contains a
synthesis must be regarded as empty and； without reference to an
object； if its synthesis does not belong to experience… either as
borrowed from it； and in this case it is called an empirical
conception； or such as is the ground and a priori condition of
experience （its form）； and in this case it is a pure conception； a
conception which nevertheless belongs to experience； inasmuch as its
object can be found in this alone。 For where shall we find the
criterion or character of the possibility of an object which is
cogitated by means of an a priori synthetical conception； if not in
the synthesis which constitutes the form of empirical cognition of
objects？ That in such a conception no contradiction exists is indeed a
necessary logical condition； but very far from being sufficient to
establish the objective reality of the conception； that is； the
possibility of such an object as is thought in the conception。 Thus；
in the conception of a figure which is contained within two straight
lines； there is no contradiction； for the conceptions of two
straight lines and of their junction contain no negation of a
figure。 The impossibility in such a case does not rest upon the
conception in itself； but upon the construction of it in space； that
is to say； upon the conditions of space and its determinations。 But
these have themselves objective reality； that is； they apply to
possible things； because they contain a priori the form of
experience in general。
And now we shall proceed to point out the extensive utility and
influence of this postulate of possibility。 When I represent to