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！
this possibility； although in appearance it may be similar to ours；
can with the utmost certainty be distinguished from it by these marks。
SS 4。 Conclusions from the foregoing Conceptions。
（a） Space does Space does not represent any property of objects as
things in themselves； nor does it represent them in their relations to
each other； in other words； space does not represent to us any
determination of objects such as attaches to the objects themselves；
and would remain； even though all subjective conditions of the
intuition were abstracted。 For neither absolute nor relative
determinations of objects can be intuited prior to the existence of
the things to which they belong； and therefore not a priori。
（b） Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the
external sense； that is； the subjective condition of the
sensibility； under which alone external intuition is possible。 Now；
because the receptivity or capacity of the subject to be affected by
objects necessarily antecedes all intuitions of these objects； it is
easily understood how the form of all phenomena can be given in the
mind previous to all actual perceptions； therefore a priori； and how
it； as a pure intuition； in which all objects must be determined；
can contain principles of the relations of these objects prior to
all experience。
It is therefore from the human point of view only that we can
speak of space； extended objects； etc。 If we depart from the
subjective condition； under which alone we can obtain external
intuition； or； in other words； by means of which we are affected by
objects； the representation of space has no meaning whatsoever。 This
predicate is only applicable to things in so far as they appear to us；
that is； are objects of sensibility。 The constant form of this
receptivity； which we call sensibility； is a necessary condition of
all relations in which objects can be intuited as existing without us；
and when abstraction of these objects is made； is a pure intuition； to
which we give the name of space。 It is clear that we cannot make the
special conditions of sensibility into conditions of the possibility
of things； but only of the possibility of their existence as far as
they are phenomena。 And so we may correctly say that space contains
all which can appear to us externally； but not all things considered
as things in themselves； be they intuited or not； or by whatsoever
subject one will。 As to the intuitions of other thinking beings； we
cannot judge whether they are or are not bound by the same
conditions which limit our own intuition； and which for us are
universally valid。 If we join the limitation of a judgement to the
conception of the subject； then the judgement will possess
unconditioned validity。 For example； the proposition； 〃All objects are
beside each other in space；〃 is valid only under the limitation that
these things are taken as objects of our sensuous intuition。 But if
I join the condition to the conception and say； 〃All things； as
external phenomena； are beside each other in space；〃 then the rule
is valid universally； and without any limitation。 Our expositions；
consequently； teach the reality （i。e。； the objective validity） of
space in regard of all which can be presented to us externally as
object； and at the same time also the ideality of space in regard to
objects when they are considered by means of reason as things in
themselves； that is； without reference to the constitution of our
sensibility。 We maintain； therefore； the empirical reality of space in
regard to all possible external experience； although we must admit its
transcendental ideality； in other words； that it is nothing； so soon
as we withdraw the condition upon which the possibility of all
experience depends and look upon space as something that belongs to
things in themselves。
But； with the exception of space； there is no representation；
subjective and ref erring to something external to us； which could
be called objective a priori。 For there are no other subjective
representations from which we can deduce synthetical propositions a
priori； as we can from the intuition of space。 （See SS 3。）
Therefore； to speak accurately； no ideality whatever belongs to these；
although they agree in this respect with the representation of
space； that they belong merely to the subjective nature of the mode of
sensuous perception； such a mode； for example； as that of sight； of
hearing； and of feeling； by means of the sensations of colour；
sound； and heat； but which； because they are only sensations and not
intuitions； do not of themselves give us the cognition of any
object； least of all； an a priori cognition。 My purpose； in the
above remark； is merely this： to guard any one against illustrating
the asserted ideality of space by examples quite insufficient； for
example； by colour； taste； etc。； for these must be contemplated not as
properties of things； but only as changes in the subject； changes
which may be different in different men。 For； in such a case； that
which is originally a mere phenomenon； a rose； for example； is taken
by the empirical understanding for a thing in itself； though to
every different eye； in respect of its colour； it may appear
different。 On the contrary； the transcendental conception of phenomena
in space is a critical admonition； that； in general； nothing which
is intuited in space is a thing in itself； and that space is not a
form which belongs as a property to things； but that objects are quite
unknown to us in themselves； and what we call outward objects； are
nothing else but mere representations of our sensibility； whose form
is space； but whose real correlate； the thing in itself； is not
known by means of these representations； nor ever can be； but
respecting which； in experience； no inquiry is ever made。
SECTION II。 Of Time。
SS 5 Metaphysical Exposition of this Conception。
1。 Time is not an empirical conception。 For neither coexistence
nor succession would be perceived by us； if the representation of time
did not exist as a foundation a priori。 Without this presupposition we
could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and
the same time； or at different times； that is； contemporaneously； or
in succession。
2。 Time is a necessary representation； lying at the foundation of
all our intuitions。 With regard to phenomena in general； we cannot
think away time from them； and represent them to ourselves as out of
and unconnected with time； but we can quite well represent to
ourselves time void of phenomena。 Time is therefore given a priori。 In
it alone is all reality of phenomena possible。 These may all be
annihilated in thought； but time itself； as the universal condition of
their possibility； cannot be so annulled。
3。 On this necessity a priori is also founded the possibility of
apodeictic principles of the relations of time； or axioms of time in
general； such as： 〃Time has only one dimension；〃 〃Different times
are not coexistent but successive〃 （as different spaces are not
successive but coexistent）。 These principles cannot be derived from
experience； for it would give neither strict universality； nor
apodeictic certainty。 We should only be able to say； 〃so mon
experience teaches us；〃 but not 〃it must be so。〃 They are valid as
rules； through which； in general； experience is possible； and they
instruct us respecting experience； and not by means of it。
4。 Time is not a discursive； or as it is called； general conception；
but a pure form of the sensuous intuition。 Different times are
merely parts of one and the same time。 But the representation which
can only be given by a single object is an intuition。 Besides； the
proposition that different times cannot be coexistent could not be
derived from a general conception。 For this proposition is
synthetical； and therefore cannot spring out of conceptions alone。
It is therefore contained immediately in the intuition and
representation of time。
5。 The infinity of time signifies nothing more than that every
determined quantity of time is possible only through limitations of
one time lying at the foundation。 Consequently； the original
representation； time； must be given as unlimited。 But as the
determinate representation of the parts of time and of every
quantity of an object can only be obtained by limitation； the plete
representation of time must not be furnished by means of
conceptions； for these contain only partial representations。
Conceptions； on the contrary； must have immediate intuition for
their basis。
SS 6 Transcendental Exposition of the Conception of Time。
I may here refer to what is said above （SS 5； 3）； where； for or sake
of brevity； I have placed under the head of metaphysical exposition；
that which is properly transcendental。 Here I shall add that the
conception of change； and with it the conception of motion； as
change of place； is possible only through and in the representation of
time； that if this representation were not an intuition （internal） a
priori； no conception； of whatever kind； could render prehensible
the possibility of change； in other words； of a conjunction of
con