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！
the rationalist is bold enough to construct； on the mere authority
of the faculty of thought… without any intuition； whereby an object is
given… a self…subsistent being； merely because the unity of
apperception in thought cannot allow him to believe it a composite
being； instead of declaring； as he ought to do； that he is unable to
explain the possibility of a thinking nature； what ought to hinder the
materialist； with as complete an independence of experience； to employ
the principle of the rationalist in a directly opposite manner…
still preserving the formal unity required by his opponent？
If； now； we take the above propositions… as they must be accepted as
valid for all thinking beings in the system of rational psychology… in
synthetical connection； and proceed； from the category of relation；
with the proposition： 〃All thinking beings are； as such；
substances；〃 backwards through the series； till the circle is
completed； we come at last to their existence； of which； in this
system of rational psychology； substances are held to be conscious；
independently of external things； nay； it is asserted that； in
relation to the permanence which is a necessary characteristic of
substance； they can of themselves determine external things。 It
follows that idealism… at least problematical idealism； is perfectly
unavoidable in this rationalistic system。 And； if the existence of
outward things is not held to be requisite to the determination of the
existence of a substance in time； the existence of these outward
things at all； is a gratuitous assumption which remains without the
possibility of a proof。
But if we proceed analytically… the 〃I think〃 as a proposition
containing in itself an existence as given； consequently modality
being the principle… and dissect this proposition； in order to
ascertain its content； and discover whether and how this Ego
determines its existence in time and space without the aid of anything
external； the propositions of rationalistic psychology would not begin
with the conception of a thinking being； but with a reality； and the
properties of a thinking being in general would be deduced from the
mode in which this reality is cogitated； after everything empirical
had been abstracted； as is shown in the following table：
1
I think；
2 3
as Subject； as simple Subject；
4
as identical Subject；
in every state of my thought。
Now； inasmuch as it is not determined in this second proposition；
whether I can exist and be cogitated only as subject； and not also
as a predicate of another being； the conception of a subject is here
taken in a merely logical sense； and it remains undetermined；
whether substance is to be cogitated under the conception or not。
But in the third proposition； the absolute unity of apperception…
the simple Ego in the representation to which all connection and
separation； which constitute thought； relate； is of itself
important； even although it presents us with no information about
the constitution or subsistence of the subject。 Apperception is
something real； and the simplicity of its nature is given in the
very fact of its possibility。 Now in space there is nothing real
that is at the same time simple； for points； which are the only simple
things in space； are merely limits； but not constituent parts of
space。 From this follows the impossibility of a definition on the
basis of materialism of the constitution of my Ego as a merely
thinking subject。 But； because my existence is considered in the first
proposition as given； for it does not mean； 〃Every thinking being
exists〃 （for this would be predicating of them absolute necessity）；
but only； 〃I exist thinking〃； the proposition is quite empirical；
and contains the determinability of my existence merely in relation to
my representations in time。 But as I require for this purpose
something that is permanent； such as is not given in internal
intuition； the mode of my existence； whether as substance or as
accident； cannot be determined by means of this simple
self…consciousness。 Thus； if materialism is inadequate to explain
the mode in which I exist； spiritualism is likewise as insufficient；
and the conclusion is that we are utterly unable to attain to any
knowledge of the constitution of the soul； in so far as relates to the
possibility of its existence apart from external objects。
And； indeed； how should it be possible； merely by the aid of the
unity of consciousness… which we cognize only for the reason that it
is indispensable to the possibility of experience… to pass the
bounds of experience （our existence in this life）； and to extend our
cognition to the nature of all thinking beings by means of the
empirical… but in relation to every sort of intuition； perfectly
undetermined… proposition； 〃I think〃？
There does not then exist any rational psychology as a doctrine
furnishing any addition to our knowledge of ourselves。 It is nothing
more than a discipline； which sets impassable limits to speculative
reason in this region of thought； to prevent it； on the one hand； from
throwing itself into the arms of a soulless materialism； and； on the
other； from losing itself in the mazes of a baseless spiritualism。
It teaches us to consider this refusal of our reason to give any
satisfactory answer to questions which reach beyond the limits of this
our human life； as a hint to abandon fruitless speculation； and to
direct； to a practical use； our knowledge of ourselves… which；
although applicable only to objects of experience； receives its
principles from a higher source； and regulates its procedure as if our
destiny reached far beyond the boundaries of experience and life。
From all this it is evident that rational psychology has its
origin in a mere misunderstanding。 The unity of consciousness； which
lies at the basis of the categories； is considered to be an
intuition of the subject as an object； and the category of substance
is applied to the intuition。 But this unity is nothing more than the
unity in thought； by which no object is given； to which therefore
the category of substance… which always presupposes a given intuition…
cannot be applied。 Consequently； the subject cannot be cognized。 The
subject of the categories cannot； therefore； for the very reason
that it cogitates these； frame any conception of itself as an object
of the categories； for； to cogitate these； it must lay at the
foundation its own pure self…consciousness… the very thing that it
wishes to explain and describe。 In like manner； the subject； in
which the representation of time has its basis； cannot determine；
for this very reason； its own existence in time。 Now； if the latter is
impossible； the former； as an attempt to determine itself by means
of the categories as a thinking being in general； is no less so。*
*The 〃I think〃 is； as has been already stated； an empirical
proposition； and contains the proposition； 〃I exist。〃 But I cannot
say； 〃Everything； which thinks； exists〃； for in this case the property
of thought would constitute all beings possessing it； necessary
being Hence my existence cannot be considered as an inference from the
proposition； 〃I think；〃 as Descartes maintained… because in this
case the major premiss； 〃Everything； which thinks； exists；〃 must
precede… but the two propositions are identical。 The proposition； 〃I
think；〃 expresses an undetermined empirical intuition； that perception
（proving consequently that sensation； which must belong to
sensibility； lies at the foundation of this proposition）； but it
precedes experience； whose province it is to determine an object of
perception by means of the categories in relation to time； and
existence in this proposition is not a category； as it does not
apply to an undetermined given object； but only to one of which we
have a conception； and about which we wish to know whether it does
or does not exist； out of； and apart from this conception。 An
undetermined perception signifies here merely something real that
has been given； only； however； to thought in general… but not as a
phenomenon； nor as a thing in itself （noumenon）； but only as something
that really exists； and is designated as such in the proposition； 〃I
think。〃 For it must be remarked that； when I call the proposition；
〃I think；〃 an empirical proposition； I do not thereby mean that the
Ego in the proposition is an empirical representation； on the
contrary； it is purely intellectual； because it belongs to thought
in general。 But without some empirical representation； which
presents to the mind material for thought； the mental act； 〃I
think；〃 would not take place； and the empirical is only the
condition of the application or employment of the pure intellectual
faculty。
Thus； the