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！
understanding （although； on account of the confused nature of their
representations； he gave them the name of phenomena）； and in this case
his principle of the indiscernible （principium identatis
indiscernibilium） is not to be impugned。 But； as phenomena are objects
of sensibility； and； as the understanding； in respect of them； must be
employed empirically and not purely or transcendentally； plurality and
numerical difference are given by space itself as the condition of
external phenomena。 For one part of space； although it may be
perfectly similar and equal to another part； is still without it；
and for this reason alone is different from the latter； which is added
to it in order to make up a greater space。 It follows that this must
hold good of all things that are in the different parts of space at
the same time； however similar and equal one may be to another。
2。 Agreement and Opposition。 When reality is represented by the pure
understanding （realitas noumenon）； opposition between realities is
incogitable… such a relation； that is； that when these realities are
connected in one subject； they annihilate the effects of each other
and may be represented in the formula 3 … 3 = 0。 On the other hand；
the real in a phenomenon （realitas phaenomenon） may very well be in
mutual opposition； and； when united in the same subject； the one may
completely or in part annihilate the effect or consequence of the
other； as in the case of two moving forces in the same straight line
drawing or impelling a point in opposite directions； or in the case of
a pleasure counterbalancing a certain amount of pain。
3。 The Internal and External。 In an object of the pure
understanding； only that is internal which has no relation （as regards
its existence） to anything different from itself。 On the other hand；
the internal determinations of a substantia phaenomenon in space are
nothing but relations； and it is itself nothing more than a complex of
mere relations。 Substance in space we are cognizant of only through
forces operative in it； either drawing others towards itself
（attraction）； or preventing others from forcing into itself （repulsion
and impenetrability）。 We know no other properties that make up the
conception of substance phenomenal in space； and which we term matter。
On the other hand； as an object of the pure understanding； every
substance must have internal determination and forces。 But what
other internal attributes of such an object can I think than those
which my internal sense presents to me？ That； to wit； which in
either itself thought； or something analogous to it。 Hence Leibnitz；
who looked upon things as noumena； after denying them everything
like external relation； and therefore also composition or combination；
declared that all substances； even the component parts of matter； were
simple substances with powers of representation； in one word； monads。
4。 Matter and Form。 These two conceptions lie at the foundation of
all other reflection； so inseparably are they connected with every
mode of exercising the understanding。 The former denotes the
determinable in general； the second its determination； both in a
transcendental sense； abstraction being made of every difference in
that which is given； and of the mode in which it is determined。
Logicians formerly termed the universal； matter； the specific
difference of this or that part of the universal； form。 In a judgement
one may call the given conceptions logical matter （for the judgement）；
the relation of these to each other （by means of the copula）； the form
of the judgement。 In an object； the composite parts thereof
（essentialia） are the matter； the mode in which they are connected
in the object； the form。 In respect to things in general； unlimited
reality was regarded as the matter of all possibility； the
limitation thereof （negation） as the form； by which one thing is
distinguished from another according to transcendental conceptions。
The understanding demands that something be given （at least in the
conception）； in order to be able to determine it in a certain
manner。 Hence； in a conception of the pure understanding； the matter
precedes the form； and for this reason Leibnitz first assumed the
existence of things （monads） and of an internal power of
representation in them； in order to found upon this their external
relation and the community their state （that is； of their
representations）。 Hence； with him； space and time were possible… the
former through the relation of substances； the latter through the
connection of their determinations with each other； as causes and
effects。 And so would it really be； if the pure understanding were
capable of an immediate application to objects； and if space and
time were determinations of things in themselves。 But being merely
sensuous intuitions； in which we determine all objects solely as
phenomena； the form of intuition （as a subjective property of
sensibility） must antecede all matter （sensations）； consequently space
and time must antecede all phenomena and all data of experience； and
rather make experience itself possible。 But the intellectual
philosopher could not endure that the form should precede the things
themselves and determine their possibility； an objection perfectly
correct； if we assume that we intuite things as they are； although
with confused representation。 But as sensuous intuition is a
peculiar subjective condition； which is a priori at the foundation
of all perception； and the form of which is primitive； the form must
be given per se； and so far from matter （or the things themselves
which appear） lying at the foundation of experience （as we must
conclude； if we judge by mere conceptions）； the very possibility of
itself presupposes； on the contrary； a given formal intuition （space
and time）。
REMARK ON THE AMPHIBOLY OF THE CONCEPTIONS OF REFLECTION。
Let me be allowed to term the position which we assign to a
conception either in the sensibility or in the pure understanding； the
transcendental place。 In this manner； the appointment of the
position which must be taken by each conception according to the
difference in its use； and the directions for determining this place
to all conceptions according to rules； would be a transcendental
topic； a doctrine which would thoroughly shield us from the
surreptitious devices of the pure understanding and the delusions
which thence arise； as it would always distinguish to what faculty
of cognition each conception properly belonged。 Every conception；
every title； under which many cognitions rank together； may be
called a logical place。 Upon this is based the logical topic of
Aristotle； of which teachers and rhetoricians could avail
themselves； in order； under certain titles of thought； to observe what
would best suit the matter they had to treat； and thus enable
themselves to quibble and talk with fluency and an appearance of
profundity。
Transcendental topic； on the contrary； contains nothing more than
the above…mentioned four titles of all comparison and distinction；
which differ from categories in this respect； that they do not
represent the object according to that which constitutes its
conception （quantity； reality）； but set forth merely the comparison of
representations； which precedes our conceptions of things。 But this
comparison requires a previous reflection； that is； a determination of
the place to which the representations of the things which are
compared belong； whether； to wit； they are cogitated by the pure
understanding； or given by sensibility。
Conceptions may be logically compared without the trouble of
inquiring to what faculty their objects belong； whether as noumena； to
the understanding； or as phenomena； to sensibility。 If； however； we
wish to employ these conceptions in respect of objects； previous
transcendental reflection is necessary。 Without this reflection I
should make a very unsafe use of these conceptions； and construct
pretended synthetical propositions which critical reason cannot
acknowledge and which are based solely upon a transcendental
amphiboly； that is； upon a substitution of an object of pure
understanding for a phenomenon。
For want of this doctrine of transcendental topic； and
consequently deceived by the amphiboly of the conceptions of
reflection； the celebrated Leibnitz constructed an intellectual system
of the world； or rather； believed himself competent to cognize the
internal nature of things； by comparing all objects merely with the
understanding and the abstract formal conceptions of thought。 Our
table of the conceptions of reflection gives us the unexpected
advantage of being able to exhibit the distinctive peculiarities of
his system in all its parts； and at the same time of exposing the
fundamental principle of this peculiar mode of thought； which rested
upon naught but a misconception。 He compared all things with each
other me