the+critique+of+practical+reason-第13部分

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！


finished；　that　is　to　say；　it　has　been…　shown　first；　what　it
contains；　that　it　subsists　for　itself　quite　a　priori　and　independent
of　empirical　principles；　and　next　in　what　it　is　distinguished　from　all
other　practical　principles。　With　the　deduction；　that　is；　the
justification　of　its　objective　and　universal　validity；　and　the
discernment　of　the　possibility　of　such　a　synthetical　proposition　a
priori；　we　cannot　expect　to　succeed　so　well　as　in　the　case　of　the
principles　of　pure　theoretical　reason。　For　these　referred　to　objects
of　possible　experience；　namely；　to　phenomena；　and　we　could　prove
that　these　phenomena　could　be　known　as　objects　of　experience　only　by
being　brought　under　the　categories　in　accordance　with　these　laws；
and　consequently　that　all　possible　experience　must　conform　to　these
laws。　But　I　could　not　proceed　in　this　way　with　the　deduction　of　the
moral　law。　For　this　does　not　concern　the　knowledge　of　the　properties
of　objects；　which　may　be　given　to　the　reason　from　some　other　source；
but　a　knowledge　which　can　itself　be　the　ground　of　the　existence　of　the
objects；　and　by　which　reason　in　a　rational　being　has　causality；
i。e。；　pure　reason；　which　can　be　regarded　as　a　faculty　immediately
determining　the　will。
　　Now　all　our　human　insight　is　at　an　end　as　soon　as　we　have　arrived　at
fundamental　powers　or　faculties；　for　the　possibility　of　these　cannot
be　understood　by　any　means；　and　just　as　little　should　it　be
arbitrarily　invented　and　assumed。　Therefore；　in　the　theoretic　use　of
reason；　it　is　experience　alone　that　can　justify　us　in　assuming　them。
But　this　expedient　of　adducing　empirical　proofs；　instead　of　a
deduction　from　a　priori　sources　of　knowledge；　is　denied　us　here　in
respect　to　the　pure　practical　faculty　of　reason。　For　whatever　requires
to　draw　the　proof　of　its　reality　from　experience　must　depend　for　the
grounds　of　its　possibility　on　principles　of　experience；　and　pure；
yet　practical；　reason　by　its　very　notion　cannot　be　regarded　as　such。
Further；　the　moral　law　is　given　as　a　fact　of　pure　reason　of　which　we
are　a　priori　conscious；　and　which　is　apodeictically　certain；　though　it
be　granted　that　in　experience　no　example　of　its　exact　fulfilment　can
be　found。　Hence；　the　objective　reality　of　the　moral　law　cannot　be
proved　by　any　deduction　by　any　efforts　of　theoretical　reason；
whether　speculative　or　empirically　supported；　and　therefore；　even　if
we　renounced　its　apodeictic　certainty；　it　could　not　be　proved　a
posteriori　by　experience；　and　yet　it　is　firmly　established　of　itself。
　　But　instead　of　this　vainly　sought　deduction　of　the　moral
principle；　something　else　is　found　which　was　quite　unexpected；　namely；
that　this　moral　principle　serves　conversely　as　the　principle　of　the
deduction　of　an　inscrutable　faculty　which　no　experience　could　prove；
but　of　which　speculative　reason　was　pelled　at　least　to　assume　the
possibility　（in　order　to　find　amongst　its　cosmological　ideas　the
unconditioned　in　the　chain　of　causality；　so　as　not　to　contradict
itself）…　I　mean　the　faculty　of　freedom。　The　moral　law；　which　itself
does　not　require　a　justification；　proves　not　merely　the　possibility　of
freedom；　but　that　it　really　belongs　to　beings　who　recognize　this　law
as　binding　on　themselves。　The　moral　law　is　in　fact　a　law　of　the
causality　of　free　agents　and；　therefore；　of　the　possibility　of　a
supersensible　system　of　nature；　just　as　the　metaphysical　law　of　events
in　the　world　of　sense　was　a　law　of　causality　of　the　sensible　system　of
nature；　and　it　therefore　determines　what　speculative　philosophy　was
pelled　to　leave　undetermined；　namely；　the　law　for　a　causality；
the　concept　of　which　in　the　latter　was　only　negative；　and　therefore
for　the　first　time　gives　this　concept　objective　reality。
　　This　sort　of　credential　of　the　moral　law；　viz。；　that　it　is　set　forth
as　a　principle　of　the　deduction　of　freedom；　which　is　a　causality　of
pure　reason；　is　a　sufficient　substitute　for　all　a　priori
justification；　since　theoretic　reason　was　pelled　to　assume　at　least
the　possibility　of　freedom；　in　order　to　satisfy　a　want　of　its　own。　For
the　moral　law　proves　its　reality；　so　as　even　to　satisfy　the　critique
of　the　speculative　reason；　by　the　fact　that　it　adds　a　positive
definition　to　a　causality　previously　conceived　only　negatively；　the
possibility　of　which　was　inprehensible　to　speculative　reason；　which
yet　was　pelled　to　suppose　it。　For　it　adds　the　notion　of　a　reason
that　directly　determines　the　will　（by　imposing　on　its　maxims　the
condition　of　a　universal　legislative　form）；　and　thus　it　is　able　for
the　first　time　to　give　objective；　though　only　practical；　reality　to
reason；　which　always　became　transcendent　when　it　sought　to　proceed
speculatively　with　its　ideas。　It　thus　changes　the　transcendent　use
of　reason　into　an　immanent　use　（so　that　reason　is　itself；　by　means
of　ideas；　an　efficient　cause　in　the　field　of　experience）。
　　The　determination　of　the　causality　of　beings　in　the　world　of
sense；　as　such；　can　never　be　unconditioned；　and　yet　for　every　series
of　conditions　there　must　be　something　unconditioned；　and　therefore
there　must　be　a　causality　which　is　determined　wholly　by　itself。　Hence；
the　idea　of　freedom　as　a　faculty　of　absolute　spontaneity　was　not　found
to　be　a　want　but；　as　far　as　its　possibility　is　concerned；　an
analytic　principle　of　pure　speculative　reason。　But　as　it　is　absolutely
impossible　to　find　in　experience　any　example　in　accordance　with　this
idea；　because　amongst　the　causes　of　things　as　phenomena　it　would　be
impossible　to　meet　with　any　absolutely　unconditioned　determination
of　causality；　we　were　only　able　to　defend　our　supposition　that　a
freely　acting　cause　might　be　a　being　in　the　world　of　sense；　in　so
far　as　it　is　considered　in　the　other　point　of　view　as　a　noumenon；
showing　that　there　is　no　contradiction　in　regarding　all　its　actions　as
subject　to　physical　conditions　so　far　as　they　are　phenomena；　and　yet
regarding　its　causality　as　physically　unconditioned；　in　so　far　as
the　acting　being　belongs　to　the　world　of　understanding；　and　in　thus
making　the　concept　of　freedom　the　regulative　principle　of　reason。　By
this　principle　I　do　not　indeed　learn　what　the　object　is　to　which
that　sort　of　causality　is　attributed；　but　I　remove　the　difficulty；
for；　on　the　one　side；　in　the　explanation　of　events　in　the　world；　and
consequently　also　of　the　actions　of　rational　beings；　I　leave　to　the
mechanism　of　physical　necessity　the　right　of　ascending　from
conditioned　to　condition　ad　infinitum；　while　on　the　other　side　I
keep　open　for　speculative　reason　the　place　which　for　it　is　vacant；
namely；　the　intelligible；　in　order　to　transfer　the　unconditioned
thither。　But　I　was　not　able　to　verify　this　supposition；　that　is；　to
change　it　into　the　knowledge　of　a　being　so　acting；　not　even　into　the
knowledge　of　the　possibility　of　such　a　being。　This　vacant　place　is　now
filled　by　pure　practical　reason　with　a　definite　law　of　causality　in　an
intelligible　world　（causality　with　freedom）；　namely；　the　moral　law。
Speculative　reason　does　not　hereby　gain　anything　as　regards　its
insight；　but　only　as　regards　the　certainty　of　its　problematical　notion
of　freedom；　which　here　obtains　objective　reality；　which；　though　only
practical；　is　nevertheless　undoubted。　Even　the　notion　of　causality…
the　application；　and　consequently　the　signification；　of　which　holds
properly　only　in　relation　to　phenomena；　so　as　to　connect　them　into
experiences　（as　is　shown　by　the　Critique　of　Pure　Reason）…　is　not　so
enlarged　as　to　extend　its　use　beyond　these　limits。　For　if　reason
sought　to　do　this；　it　would　have　to　show　how　the　logical　relation　of
principle　and　consequence　can　be　used　synthetically　in　a　different
sort　of　intuition　from　the　sensible；　that　is　how　a　causa　noumenon　is
possible。　This　it　can　never　do；　and；　as　practical　reason；　it　does
not　even　concern　itself　with　it；　since　it　only　places　the
determining　principle　of　causality　of　man　as　a　sensible　creature
（which　is　given）　in　pure　reason　（which　is　therefore　called　practical）；
and　therefore　it　employs　the　notion　of　cause；　not　in　order　to　know
objects；　but　to　determine　causality　in　relation　to　objects　in　general。
It　can　abstract　altogether　from　the　application　of　this　notion　to
objects　with　a　view　to　theoretical　knowl