No More Learning

Philosophical cognition, accordingly, regards the particular only in the general"; mathematical the general in the particu lar, nay, in the individual. This done, however, entirely a priori and by means of pure reason, so that, as this indi vidual figure determined under certain universal condi tions of construction, the object of the conception, to which this individual figure corresponds as its schema, must be cogitated as universally determined.
The essential difference of these two modes of cognition consists, therefore, in this formal quality does not regard the difference of the matter or objects of both. Those thinkers who aim at distinguishing philosophy from mathematics by asserting that the former has to do with quality merely, and the latter with quantity, have mistaken the effect for the cause. The reason why mathematical cognition can relate only to
? to be found its form alone. For the con-
quantity,
ceptiou of quantities only that capable of being constructed, that presented a priori intuition while qualities cannot be given any other than an empirical intuition. Hence the
? ? in is,
is
in
in
is ;
is
it is
; it
is
it,
? 436 TRANSCEND ENTAX DOCTBLNE OT METHOD.
cognition of qualities by reason is possible onlj through con
No one can find an intuition which shall correspond to the conception of reality, except in experience ; it cannot be presented to the mind a priori, and antecedently to the empirical consciousness of a reality. We can form an intuition, by means of the mere conception of of cone, without the aid of ex
ceptions.
but the colour of the cone we cannot know except from experience. cannot present an intuition of cause, except in an example, which experience offers to me. Besides, philosophy, as well as mathematics, treats of quantities as, for example, of totality, infinity, and so on. Mathematics, too, treats of the difference of lines and surfaces --as spaces
perience
? of different quality, of the continuity of extension --as quality thereof. But, although in such cases they have common object, the mode in which reason considers that object very different in philosophy from what in mathematics. The former confines itself to the general conceptions the latter can do nothing with mere conception, hastens to intuition. In this intuition regards the conception in concrete, not empirically, but in an a priori intuition, which has con structed and in which, all the results which follow from the general conditions of the construction of the conception, are
all cases valid for the object of the constructed conception.
Suppose that the conception of triangle given to phi losopher, and that he required to discover, the philoso phical method, what relation the sum of its angles bears to
right angle. He has nothing before him but the concep tion of figure enclosed within three right lines, and, conse quently, with the same number of angles. He may analyze the conception of right line, of an angle, or of the number three as long as he pleases, but he will not discover any pro perties not contained in these conceptions. But, this ques tion proposed to geometrician, he at once begins con structing triangle. * He knows that two right angles are equal to the sum of all the contiguous angles which proceed from one point in straight line and he goes on to produce
one side of his triangle, thus forming two adjacent angles which are together equal to two right angles. He then divides the exterior of these angles, drawing line parallel with the
Either in his own mind -- pure intuition, or upon paper --in em pirical intuition. -- Tr
? ? *
in a;;
in by
it, a
; a
a
it is
is a
a
aaa it I is a
is by
if
by a is
it
;
a
it
aa ;
? THE DJSClPLIifE Ot PtJEE BEASOtf.
437
opposite side of the triangle, and immediately perceives that he has thus got an exterior adjacent angle which is equal to the in terior. Proceeding in this way, through a chain of inferences, and always on the ground of intuition, he arrives at a clear and universally valid solution of the question.
But mathematics does not confine itself to the construction of quantities (quanta), as in the case of geometry ; it occupies
itself with pure quantity also (quantitas), as in the case of algebra, where complete abstraction is made of the properties of the object indicated by the conception of quantity. In algebra, a certain method of notation by signs is adopted, and these indicate the different possible constructions of quantities, the extraction of roots, and so on. After having thus denoted the general conception of quantities, according to their different relations, the different operations by which quantity or number is increased or diminished are presented in intuition in accord ance with general rules. Thus, when ore quantity is to be divided by another, the signs which denote both are placed in the form peculiar to the operation of division ; and thus alge
bra, by means of a symbolical construction of quantity, just as geometry, with its ostensive or geometrical construction (a construction of the objects themselves), arrives at results which discursive cognition cannot hope to reach by the aid of mere conceptions.
Now, what is the cause of this difference in the fortune of the philosopher and the mathematician, the former of whom follows the path of conceptions, while the latter pursues that of intuitions, which he represents, a priori, in correspondence with his conceptions. The cause is evident, from what has been already demonstrated in the introduction to this Critique. We do not, in the present case, want to discover analytical propositions, which may be produced merely by analysing our conceptions --for in this the philosopher would have the ad vantage over his rival ; we aim at the discovery of synthetics, propositions--such synthetical propositions, moreover, as can be cognized a priori. I must not confine myself to that which I actually cogitate in my conception of a triangle, for this is nothing more than the mere definition ; I must try to go beyond that, and to arrive at properties which are not
contained in, although they belong to, the conception. Now, this is impossible, unless I determine the object present to
? ? ? ? 438 TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF METHOD.
my mind according to the conditions, either of empirical, or of pure intuition. In the former case, I should have an empirical proposition (arrived at by actual measurement of the angles of the triangle), which would possess neither universality nor necessity ; but that would be of no value. In the latter, I pro ceed by geometrical construction, by means of which I collect, in a pure intuition, just as I would in an empirical intuition, all the various properties which belong to the schema of a tri angle in general, and consequently to its conception, nnd thus construct synthetical propositions which possess the attribute <<>f universality.
It would be vain to philosophize upon the triangle, that
to reflect on discursively should get no further than the definition with which had been obliged to set out. There are certainly transcendental synthetical propositions which are framed means of pure conceptions, and which form the peculiar distinction of philosophy but these do not relate to any particular thing, but to thing in general, and enounce the conditions under which the perception of may become part of possible experience. But the science of mathematics has nothing to do with such questions, nor with the question of existence in any fashion concerned merely with the properties of objects in themselves, only so far as these are connected with the conception of the objects.
In the above example, we have merely attempted to show the great difference which exbts between the discursive em ployment of reason in the sphere of conceptions, and its intui tive exercise by means of the construction of conceptions. The question naturally arises --what the cause which neces sitates this twofold exercise of reason, and how are we to discover whether the philosophical or the mathematical method which reason pursuing an argument
All our knowledge relates, finally, to possible intuitions, for these alone that present objects to the mind. An
priori or non-empirical conception contains either pure intuition --and in this case can be constructed or con
tains nothing but the synthesis of possible intuitions, which are not given priori. In this latter case, may help us to form synthetical priori judgments, but only in the discur sive method, by conceptions, not the intuitive, by means of the construc'iou of conceptions.
? ? ? a a
by
it
it
; it is
; aI
it is
is is
I
it
in in ; is
it
;?
in
it
it a
a a is,
? THE DISCIPLINE OF PUBE EEASON. 439
The only a priori intuition is that of the pure form of phenomena -- space and time. A conception of space and time as quanta may be presented a priori in intuition, that constructed, either along with their quality (figure), or as pure quantity (the mere synthesis of the homogeneous), by means of number. But the matter of phenomena, by which things are given in space and time, can be presented only in perception, a posteriori. The only conception which repre sents priori this empirical content of phenomena, the conception of thing in general and the a priori synthetical cognition of this conception can give us nothing more than the rule for the synthesis of that which may be contained in the corresponding posteriori perception utterly inade quate to present an priori intuition of the real object, which
must necessarily be empirical.
Synthetical propositions, which relate to things in general,
? an a priori intuition of which impossible, are transcen dental. For this reason transcendental propositions cannot be framed by means of the construction of conceptions they are a priori, and based entirely on conceptions themselves. They contain merely the rule, by which we are to seek in the world of perception or experience the synthetical unity of that which cannot be intuited a priori. But they are incom petent to present any of the conceptions which appear in them in an priori intuition these can be given only a pos teriori, experience, which, however, itself possible only through these synthetical principles.
If we are to form synthetical judgment regarding con ception, we must go beyond to the intuition in which given. If we keep to what contained in the conception, the judgment merely analytical-- merely an explanation of what we have cogitated in the conception. But can pass from the conception to the pure or empirical intuition which corresponds to it. can proceed to examine my conception in toner eto, and to cognize, either a priori or a posteriori, what find in the object of the conception. The former--a priori cognition-- rational-mathematical cognition by means of the construction of the conception the latter -- posteriori cognition-- purely empirical cognition, which does not possess the attributes of necessity and universality. Thus
may analyze the conception have of gold but gain no
? ? I
;
is it,
;
; I
it is
is
is
a
Ia in
is I a
aa
aI
it I is
is,
it is
;
is
a;
is
is
;
a
? 440 TKAKSCJSNDENTAL DOCTRINE OF METHOD.
new information from this analysis, I merely enumerate the different properties which I had couuected with the notion in dicated hy the word. My knowledge has gained iu logical clearness and arrangement, but no addition has been made to it. But if I take the matter which is indicated by this name, and submit it to the examination of my senses, I am enabled to form several synthetical --although still empirical--propo sitions. The mathematical conception of a triangle I should construct, that present priori in intuition, and in this way attain to rational-synthetical cognition. But when the transcendental conception of reality, or substance, or power
presented to my mind, find that does not relate to or indicate either an empirical or pure intuition, hut that indicates merely the synthesis of empirical intuitions, which cannot of course be given priori. The synthesis in such conception cannot proceed priori -- without the aid of expe rience --to the intuition which corresponds to the conception and, for this reason, none of these conceptions can produce determinative synthetical proposition, they can never present
more than principle of the syn thesis* of possible empirical
intuitions. transcendental proposition therefore,
thetical cognition of reason means of pure conceptions and the discursive method, and renders possible all synthetical unity in empirical cognition, though cannot present us with any intuition priori.
There thus twofold exercise of reason. Both modes have the properties of universality and an priori origin common, but are, in their procedure, of widely different cha racter. The reason of this that the world of pheno mena, in which alone objects are presented to our minds, there are two main elements -- the form of intuition (space and
time), which can be cognized and determined completely priori, and the matter or content --that which presented in space and time, and which, consequently, contains some-
In the case of the conception of cause, do really go beyond the em pirical conception of an event --but not to the intuition which presents this conception in concrtto, but only to the time-conditions, which may be found in experience to correspond to the conception. My procedure '">>, therefore, strictly according to conceptions cannot in case of this Kind employ the construction of conceptions, because the conception merely rule for the synthesis of perceptions, which are not pure intui tions, and which, therefore, cannot be given priori.
? syn
? ? a
a is *
a I in ;I
it
is,
it
is
in
a; n it
a
is a
is,
a
is
A
a
a a
is,
it by
aaI
a
a
? THE DISCIPLINE OF PURE SEASON. 441
thing -- an existence corresponding to onr powers of sensation. As regards the latter, which can never be given in a deter minate mode except by experience, there are no a priori no tions which relate to except the undetermined conceptions of the synthesis of possible sensations, in so far as these belong (in possible experience') to the unity of consciousness. As regards the former, we can determine our conceptions
priori in intuition, inasmuch as we are ourselves the creators of the objects of the conceptions in space and time--these ob jects being regarded simply ns quanta. In the one case, reason proceeds according to conceptions, and can do nothing more than subject phenomena to these --which can only be deter- minedempiricftlly, that a posteriori -- in conformity, however, with those conceptions as the rules of all empirical synthesis. In the other case, reason proceeds the construction of con ceptions and, as these conceptions relate to an a priori in tuition, they may be given and determined in pure intuition
priori, and without the aid of empirical data. The exa mination and consideration of everything that exists in space or time --whether quantum or not, in how far the par ticular something (which fills space or time) primary sub
stratum, or mere determination of some other existence, whether relates to anything else -- either as cause or effect, whether its existence isolated or in reciprocal connection with and dependence upon others, the possibility of this ex istence, its reality and necessity or their opposites, --all these form part of the cognition of reason on the ground of concep tions, and this cognition termed philosophical. But to de termine a priori an intuition in space (its figure), to divide time into periods, or merely to cognize the quantity of an in tuition in space and time, and to determine number, -- all this an operation reason means of the construction of conceptions, and called mathematical.
The success which attends the efforts of reason in the sphere of mathematics, naturally fosters the expectation that the same good fortune will be its lot, applies the mathematical method in other regions of mental endeavour besides that of
Its success thus great, because can sup port all its conceptions by priori intuitions, and in this way, make itself master, as were, over nature while pure
with its a prnri discursive conceptions, bungles
? quantities. philosophy,
? ? is aa
it a is
it
is
;
it
it by
is a
if
by
is
of
it
it
;
is
isa is,
it,
aa
by
a
? 442 TRANSCENDENTAX DOCTRINE OT METHOD.
abont iu the world of nature, and cannot accredit or show any a priori evidence of the reality of these conceptions. Masters in the science of mathematics are confident of the success of this method ; indeed, it is a common persuasion, that it is capable of being applied to any subject of human thought. They have hardly ever reflected or philosophized on their favourite science -- a task of great difficulty ; and the specific difference between the two modes of employing the faculty of reason has never entered their thoughts. Rules current in the field of common experience, and which com mon sense stamps everywhere with ita approval, are regarded by them as axiomatic. From what source the conceptions of space and time, with which (as the only primitive quanta) they have to deal, enter their minds, is a question which they do not trouble themselves to answer ; and they think it jnst as unnecessary to examine into the origin of the pure concep tions of the understanding and the extent of their validity. All they have to do with them is to employ them. In nll this they are perfectly right, if they do not overstep the limits of the sphere of nature. But they pass, unconsciously, from the world of sense to the insecure ground of pure transcen dental conceptions (instabilii tellut, innabilis undo), where they can neither stand nor swim, and where the tracks of their foot steps are obliterated by time ; while the march of mathematics is pursued on a broad and magnificent highway, which the latest posterity shall frequent without fear of danger or impediment.
As we have taken upon us the task of determining, clearly and certainly, the limits of pure reason in the sphere ot transcendentalism, and as the efforts of reason in this direction are persisted in, even after the plainest and most expressive warnings, hope still beckoning us past the limits of experi ence into the splendours of the intellectual world, -- it becomes necessary to cut away the last anchor of this fallacious and fantastic hope. We shall accordingly show that the mathe matical method is unattended in the sphere of philosophy by the least advantage --except, perhaps, that it more plainly exhibits its own inadequacy, --that geometry and philosophy are two quite different things, although they go hand in hand in the field of natural science, and, consequently, that tha
procedure of the one can never be imitated by the other.
? ? ? ? THE DISCIPLUTB Of FUBE SEASON. 443
The evidence of mathematics rests upon definitions, axioms, and demonstrations. I shall be satisfied with showing that none of these forms can be employed or imitated in philosophy in the sense in which they are understood by mathematicians ; and that the geometrician, if he employs his method in philosophy, will succeed only in building card-castles, while the employment of the philosophical method in mathema tics, can result in nothing but mere verbiage. The essential business of philosophy, indeed, is to mark out the limits of the science ; and even the mathematician, unless his talent is naturally circumscribed and limited to this particular depart ment of knowledge, cannot turn a deaf ear to the warnings of philosophy, or set himself above its direction.
1. Of Definitions. -- A definition as the term itself indi cates, the representation, upon primary grounds, of the complete conception of a thing within its own limits. * Accordingly, an empirical conception cannot be defined, can only be explained. For, as there are in such conception only certain number of marks or signs, which denote certain class of sensuous objects, we can never be sure that we do not cogitate under the word which indicates the same object, at one time greater, at another smaller number of signs. Thus, one person may cogitate in his conception of gold, in addition to its properties of weight, colour, malleability, that of resisting rust, while another person may be ignorant of this quality. We employ certain signs only so long as we require them for the sake of distinction new observations abstract some and add new ones, so that an empirical conception never remains within permanent limits. It is, in fact, useless to define conception of this kind. If, for example, we are speaking of water and its properties, we do not stop at what we actually think by the word water, but proceed to observa
tion and experiment; and the word, with the few signs
The definition must describe the conception complete! )/, that omit none of the marks or signs of which composed within ill own limitt, that must be precise, and enumerate no more higus than belong to the conception and on primary ground*, that to say, the limitation of the bounds of the conception must not be deduced from other concep tions, as in this case proof vould be necessary, and the so-called definition would be incapable of taking its place at the head of all the judgments we have to form regarding an object.
? ? ? a
;
a
is
;
is, a
it is
;
a
*
is,
it a
is,
it a
a
? 444 TRANSCENDENT AJ, DOCTRINE OF METHOD.
attached to more properly designation than concep tion of the thing. definition in this case, would evidently" be nothing more than determination, of the word. In the second place, no priori conception, such as those of sub stance, cause, right, fitness, and so on, can be defined. For
can never be sure, that the clear representation of given conception (which given in confused state) has been fully developed, until know that the representation adequate with its object. But, inasmuch as the conception, as presented to the mind, may contain number of obscure representations, which we do not observe our analysis, although we employ them in our application of the concep tion, can never be sure that my analysis complete, while examples may make this probable, although they can never demonstrate the fact. Instead of the word definition, should rather employ the term exposition -- more modest expression, which the critic may accept without surrendering his doubt* as to the completeness
tion. As, therefore, neither empirical nor a priori concep tions are capable of definition, we have to see whether the only other kind of conceptions -- arbitrary conceptions -- can
? be subjected to this mental operation. Such conception can always be defined for must know thoroughly what wished to cogitate as was who created and was not given to my mind either the nature of my understand ing or experience. At the same time, cannot say that,
such definition, have defined real object. If the
based upon empirical conditions, for example, have conception of clock for ship, this arbitrary con
ception does not rssnre me of the existence or even of the possibility of the object. My definition of uch conception would with more propriety be termed declaration of pro ject than definition of an object. There are no other
which can bear definition, except those which contain an arbitrary synthesis, which can be constructed a priori. Consequently, the science of mathematics alone possesses definitions. For the object here thought pre sented a priori in intuition and thus can never contain more or less than the conception, because the conception
the object has been given by the definition -- and primarily, that '"ithout deriving the definition from any other source
conception
conceptions
? ? is,
a a
I
;
it I
by a
it
is a of
it
I is
a
a
I
a is
a if,
it, a
is
a
I by
I
a by is
it, I is
is a a;a
I it,
in
A
I aa
a
I
a
in
it
? TELE DISCIPLINE OF PITRE EEA. SON. 44 S
Philosophical definitions are, therefore, merely expositions of given conceptions, while mathematical definitions are con structions of conceptions originally formed by the mind itself; the former are produced by analysis, the completeness of which is never demonstratively certain, the latter by a syn thesis. In a mathematical definition the conception is formed, in a philosophical definition it is only explained. From this it follows :
a. That we must not imitate, in philosophy, the mathe matical usage of commencing with definitions --except by way of hypothesis or experiment. For, as all so-called philoso phical definitions are merely analyses of given conceptions, these conceptions, although only in a confused form, must precede the analysis ; and the incomplete exposition must pre cede the complete, so that we may be able to draw certain in ferences from the characteristics which an incomplete analysis has enabled us to discover, before we attain to the complete exposition or definition of the conception. In one word, a full and clear definition ought, in philosophy, rather to form the conclusion than the commencement of our labours. * In mathematics, on the contrary, we cannot have a conception
prior to the definition ; it is the definition which gives us the conception, and it must for this reason form the commence ment of every chain of mathematical reasoning.
b. Mathematical definitions cannot be erroneous. For the conception is given only in and through the definition, and thus it contains only what has been cogitated in the definition. But although a definition cannot be incorrect, as regards its content, an error may sometimes, although seldom, creep into the form. This error consists in a want of precision. Thus the common definition of a circle -- that it is a curved line, every point in which is equally distant from another
* Philosophy abounds in faulty definitions, especially such as contain some of the elements requisite to form a complete definition. If a con ception could not be employed in reasoning before it had been defined, it would fare ill with all philosophical thought. But, as incompletely defined conceptions may always be employed without detriment to truth, so far as our analysis of the elements contained in them proceeds, imperfect defi nitions, that is, propositions which are properly not definitions, but merely approximations thereto, may be used with great advantage. In ma thematics, definition belongs ad ate, in philosophy ad meliut em. It is a difficult task to construct a proper definition. Jurists are still withoof
a complete definition of the idea of right.
? ? ? ? 446 TllAKSCENDXNTAI, DOCTRINE OF METHOD.
point called the centre -- is faulty, from the fact that the determination indicated by the word curved is superfluous. For there ought to be a particular theorem, which may be easily proved from the definition, to the effect that every line, which has all its points at equal distances from another point, must be a curved line -- that that not even the smallest part of can be straight. Analytical definitions, on the other hand, may be erroneous in many respects, either the in troduction of signs which do not actually exist in the concep tion, or by wanting in that completeness which forms the es sential of definition. In the latter case, the definition necessarily defective, because we can never be fully certain the completeness of our analysis. For these reasons, the me thod of definition employed mathematics cannot be imitated in philosophy.
'1. Of Axioms. These, in so far as they are immediately
certain, are priori synthetical principles. Now, one con
ception cannot be connected synthetically and yet immediately with another because, we wish to proceed out of and beyond
? third mediating cognition necessary. And, as philosophy cognition of reason the aid of concep tions alone, there to be found in no principle which de
conception,
serves to be called an axiom. Mathematics, on the other hand, may possess axioms, because can always connect the pre dicates of an object priori, and without any mediating term, by means of the construction of conceptions in intuition. Such
the case with the proposition, three points can always plane. On the other hand, no synthetical principle
lie
which
certain, (for example, the proposition, Everything that hap pens has cause), because require mediating term to con nect the two conceptions of event and cause --namely, the con dition of time-determination in an experience, and cannot cognize any such principle immediately and from conceptions alone. Discursive principles are, accordingly, very different from intuitive principles or axioms. The former always re quire deduction, which in the case of the latter may be alto gether dispensed with.
Axioms are, for this reason, nlways self-evident, while philosophical principles, whatever may b<< the degree of certainty they possess, cannot lay any claim to
such distinction. No synthetical proposition of pur>> trans
based upon conceptions, can ever be immediately
? ? a
in
is a is
it a
a
I a
it
if
in
is,
a
a is
it
is a
by
is
I by of is
a
;
a
? THE DISCIPLINE OF PPBE EEARON.
147
eendenta] reason can be so evident, as is often rashly enough declared, as the statement, twice two are four. It is true that in the Analytic I introduced into the list of principles of the pure understanding, certain axioms of intuition ; but the prin ciple there discussed was not itself an axiom, but served merely to present the principle of the possibility of axioms in general, while it was really nothing more than a principle based upon conceptions. For it is one part of the duty of transcendental philosophy to establish the possibility of mathematics itself. Philosophy possesses, then, no axioms, and has no right tc impose its a priori principles upon thought, until it has established their authority and validity by a thorough-going deduction.
3. Of Demonstrations. Only an apodeictic proof, based upon intuition, can be termed a demonstration. Experience
teaches us what but cannot convince us that
have been otherwise. Hence proof upon empirical grounds cannot be apodeictic. priori conceptions, in discursive cogni tion, can never produce intuitive certainty or evidence, however certain the judgment they present may be. Mathematics alone, therefore, contains demonstrations, because does not deduce its cognition from conceptions, but from the construction of conceptions, that from intuition, which can be given a priori in accordance with conceptions. The method of algebra, in
equations, from which the correct answer deduced duction, kind of construction --not geometrical, but symbols -- in which all conceptions, especially those of the re
lations of quantities, are represented in intuition signs and thus the conclusions that science are secured from errors the fact that every proof submitted to ocular evidence.
Philosophical cognition does not possess this advantage, being required to consider the general always in abstracto (by means of conceptions), while mathematics can always consider
? in eonereto (in an individual intuition), and at the same time means of priori representation, whereby all errors are ren
dered manifest to the senses. The former -- discursive proofs --ought to be termed aeroamatic* proofs, rather than demon strations, as only words are employed in them, while demon strations proper, as the term itself indicates, always require reference to the intuition of the object.
From aKpoafUirub\. -- Tr.
might
re
? ? *
is,
A
is,
i
? it
by
by it by a
is a
iu is
it a
by
; by
it
is
it
? 448 TRAKSCEWDIENTAL DOCTBINE OF METHOD.
It follows from nil these considerations, that it is not coo- sonant with the nature of philosophy, especially in the sphere of pure reason, to employ the dogmatical method, and to adorn itself with the titles and insignia of mathematical science. It does not belong to that order, and can only hope for a fraternal union with that science. Its attempts at ma thematical evidence are vain pretensions, which can only keep it back from its true aim, which is to detect the illusory pro cedure of reason when transgressing its proper limits, and by fully explaining and analysing our conceptions, to conduct us from the dim regions of speculation, to the clear region of modest self-knowledge. Reason must not, therefore, in its transcendental endeavours, look forward with such confidence,
ns if the path it is pursuing led straight to its aim, nor reckon with such security upon its premises, as to consider it un necessary to take a step back, or to keep a strict watch for errors, which, overlooked in the principles, may be detected in the arguments themselves --in which case it may be requisite either to determine these principles with greater strictness, or to change them entirely.
I divide all apodeictic propositions, whether demonstrable or immediately certain, into dogmata and maihemata. A direct synthetical proposition, based on conceptions, is a dogma ; a proposition of the same kind, based on the con struction of conceptions, isamathema. Analytical judgments do not teach us any more about an object, than what was con tained in the conception we had of it ; because they do not extend our cognition beyond our conception of an object, they merely elucidate the conception. They cannot there fore be with propriety termed dogmas. Of the two kinds of a priori synthetical propositions above-mentioned, only those which are employed iu philosophy can, according to the ge neral mode of speech, bear this name; those of arithmetic or
? would not be rightly bo denominated. Thus the
geometry
customary mode of speaking confirms the explanation given above, and the conclusion arrived at, that only those judg
ments which are based upon couceptions, not on the construe* tion of conceptions, can be termed dogmatical.
Thus, pure reason, in the sphere of speculation, does not contain a eingle direct synthetical judgment based npon con ceptions. By means of ideas, it as we have showa, in
? ? is,
? THE DISCIPLINE OT PUBE BEA8OK. 449
capable of producing synthetical judgments, which are ob jectively valid ; by means of the conceptions of the under standing, it establishes certain indubitable principles, not, however, directly on the basis of conceptions, but only indi rectly by means of the relation of these conceptions to some thing of a purely contingent nature, namely, possible experi ence. When experience is presupposed, these principles are apodeictically certain, but in themselves, and directly, they cannot even be cognized a priori. Thus the given concep tions of cause and event will not be sufficient for the demon stration of the proposition, every event has a cause. For this reason, it is not a dogma ; although from another point of . view -- that of experience, it is capable of being proved to demonstration. The proper term for suclT~a proposition is principle, and not theorem (although it does require to be proved), because it possesses the remarkable peculiarity of being the condition of the possibility of its own ground of pooof, that is, experience, and of forming a necessary presup position in all empirical observation.
? If then, in the speculative sphere of pure reason, no dog mata are to be found ; all dogmatical methods, whether bor rowed from mathematics, or invented by philosophical thinkers, are alike inappropriate and inefficient. They only serve (o conceal errors and fallacies, and to deceive philosophy, whose duty it is to see that reason pursues a safe and straight path. A philosophical method may, however, be systematical. For our reason subjectively considered, itself system, and, in the sphere of mere conceptions, system of investigation ac cording to principles of unity, the material being supplied experience alone. But this not the proper place for discuss ing the peculiar method of transcendental philosophy, as our present task simply to examine whether our faculties art capable of erecting an edifice on the basis of pure reason, and how far they may proceed with the materials at their command.
CHAPTER FIRST.
Sbctio* Secohd.
The Discxphne of Pure Reason in Polemui.
Kcason must be subject, in all its operations, to criticism,
? ? 0 Q
is
is,
is
a
by
a
? 460 TRAVSUENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF METHOD.
which must always be permitted to exercise its functions with out restraint ; otherwise its interests are imperilled, and its in fluence obnoxious to suspicion. There is nothing, howevei useful, however sacred it may be, that can claim exemption from the searching examination of this supreme tribunal, which has no respect of persons. The very existence of reason depends upon this freedom ; for the voice of reason is not that of a dictatorial and despotic power, it is rather like the vote of the citizen of a free state, every member of which must have the privilege of giving free expression to his doubts, %nd possess even the right of veto.
But while reason can never decline to submit itself to the tribunal of criticism, it has not always cause to dread the judgment of this court. Pure reason, however, when engaged in the sphere of dogmatism, is not so thoroughly conscious of a strict observance of its highest laws, as to appear before a
higher judicial reason with perfect confidence. On the con trary, it must renounce its magnificent dogmatical pretensions in philosophy.
? Very different is the case, when it has to defend itself, not before a judge, but against an equal. If dogmatical assertions are advanced on the negative side, in opposition to those made by reason on the positive side, its justification xar avfourro, is complete, although the proof of its propositions is xar' dXriQuav unsatisfactory.
By the polemic of pure reason I mean the defence of its propositions made by reason, in opposition to the dogmatical counter-propositions advanced by other parties. Tbe question here is not whether its own statements may not also be false ; it merely regards the fact that reason proves that the oppo site cannot be established with demonstrative certainty, nor even asserted with a higher degree of probability. Reason does not hold her possessions upon sufferauce ; for, although she ca-not show a perfectly satisfactory title to them, no one can prove that she is not the rightful possessor.
It is a melancholy reflection, that reason, in its highest exer cise, falls into an antithetic ; and that the supreme tribunal for the settlement of differences, should not be at union with itself. It is true that we had to discuss the question of an apparent antithetic, but we found that it was based upon a
misconception. In conformity with the common prejudice,
? ? ? THE DISCIPLINE OF PUBS BBABON. 451
phenomena were regarded as things in themselves, and thus an absolute completeness in their synthesis was required in the one mode or in the other, was shown to be impossible in both) demand entirely out of place in regard to pheno mena. There was, then, no real self-contradiction of reason
the propositions -- the series of phenomena given in them
selves has an absolutely first beginning, and, this series abso
lutely and in itself without beginning. The two propositions
me perfectly consistent with each other, because phenomena
as phenomena, are in themselves nothing, and consequently the hypothesis that they are things in themselves, must lead to
self-contradictory inferences.
But there are cases in which similar misunderstanding can
not be provided against, and the dispute must remain unsettled. Take, fo example, the theislic proposition There Supreme Being and on the other hand, the atheistic counter-statement
There exists no Supreme Being or, in psychology Every thing that thinks, possesses the attribute of absolute and
permanent unity, which utterly different from the transitory unity of material phenomena and the counter proposition The soul not an immaterial unity, and its nature transi
tory, like that of phenomena. The objects of these questions contain no heterogeneous or contradictory elements, for they relate to things in themselves, and not to phenomena. There would arise indeed, real contradiction, reason came for
ward with statement on the negative side of these ques tions alone. As regards the criticism to which the grounds of proof on the affirmative side must be subjected, may be freely admitted, without necessitating the surrender of the affirmative propositions, which have, at least, the interest of reason in their favour --an advantage which the opposite party cannot lay claim to.
cannot agree with the opinion of several admirable think ers-- Sulzer among the rest -- that in spite of the weakness of the arguments hitherto in use, we may hope, one day, to see sufficient demonstrations of the two cardinal propositions of pure reason -- the existence of Supreme Being, and the
? immortality of the soul. this will never be the case.
am certain, on the contrary, that For on what ground can reason base such synthetical propositions, which do not relate to the
objects of experience and their internal possibility --But
? ? ?
is
:
a
I
a
is ;
;
a
(it
I
in
il :
:
it
if : is
a
is
; a
a
;
is
? 452 TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF METHOD.
is also demonstratively certain that no one will ever be able to maintain the contrary with the least show of probability. For, as he can attempt such a proof solely upon the basis of pure reason, he is bound to prove that a Supreme Being, and a thinking subject in the character of a pure intelligence, are
impotsible. But where will he find the knowledge which can enable him to enounce synthetical judgments in regard to things which transcend the region of experience ? We may, Iherefore, rest assured that the opposite never will be demon strated. We need not, then, have recourse to scholastic argu ments ; we may always admit the truth of those propositions which are consistent with the speculative interests of reasor in the sphere of experience, and form, moreover, the only
means of uniting the speculative with the practical interest. Our opponent, who must not be considered here as a critic solely, we can be ready to meet with a non liquet which can not fail to disconcert him ; while we cannot deny his right to a similar retort, as we have on our side the advantage of the support of the subjective maxim of reason, and can therefore look upon all his sophistical arguments with calm in difference.
From this point of view, there is properly no antithetic of pure reason. For the only arena for such a struggle would be upon the field of pure theology and psychology ; but on this ground there can appear no combatant whom we need to fear. Ridicule and boasting can be his only weapons ; and these may be laughed at, as mere child's play. This consi deration restores to Reason her courage ; for what source of confidence could be found, if she, whose vocation it is to de
stroy error, were at variance with herself and without any reasonable hope of ever reaching a state of permanent repose ?
Everything in nature is good for some purpose. Even poisons are serviceable ; ffrey destroy the evil effects of other poisons generated in our system, and must always find a place in every complete pharmacopoeia. The objections raised against the fallacies and sophistries of speculative reason, are
objections given by the nature of this reason itself, and must therefore have a destination and purpose which can only be for the good of humanity. For what purpose has Providence raised many objects, in which we have the deepest interest, so far above us, that we vainly try to cognize them with cei>>
? ? ? ? THE DISCIPLINE OF PTJBE nEASOH. 453
tainty, and our powers of mental vision are rather excited than satisfied by the glimpses we may chance to seize ? It is very doubtful whether it is for our benefit to advance bold affirmations regarding subjects involved in such obscurity ; perhaps it would even De detrimental to our best interests. But it is undoubtedly always beneficial to leave the investi gating, aa well as the critical reason, in perfect freedom, and permit it to take charge of its own interests, which are ad vanced as much by its limitation, as by its extension of its views, and which always suffer by the interference of foreign powers forcing against its natural tendencies, to bend to cer tain pre-conceived designs.
Allow your opponent to say what he thinks reasonable, and combat him only with the weapons of reason. Have no anx iety for the practical interests of humanity--these are never imperilled in purely speculative dispute. Such dispute serves merely to disclose the antinomy of reason, which, as has its source in the nature of reason, ought to be thoroughly
? Reason benefited the examination of subject on both sides, and its judgments are corrected
being limited. not the matter that may give occasion to dispute, but the manner. For perfectly permissible to
investigated.
employ, in the presence of reason, the language of firmly- rooted faith, even after we have been obliged to renounce all pretensions to knowledge.
Ifwe were to ask the dispassionate Davi>l Hume-- phi losopher endowed, degree that few are, with well- balanced judgment What motive induced you to spend so much labour and thought in undermining the consoling and beneficial persuasion that Reason capable of assuring us of the existence, and presenting us with determinate conception of Supreme Being? -- His answer would be: Nothing but the desire of teaching Reason to know its own powers better,
and, at the same time, dislike of the procedure by which
that faculty was compelled to support foregone conclusions, and prevented from confessing the internal weaknesses which
cannot but feel when enters upon rigid self-examina tion. If, on the other hand, we were to ask Priestley---% philosopher who had no taste for transcendental speculation, but was entirely devoted to the principles of empiricism --what
his motives were for overturning those two main pillars
? ? of
by a it
it
a
it
a
a is
a
It :in is
is is
a by
a aa
a
it
a
it,
? 454 TRAirSCENDENTiX SOCTSIBK Of METHOD.
religion--the doctrines of the freedom of the will and the immortality of the soul (in his view the hope of a future life is but the expectation of the miracle of resurrection,) -- this philosopher, himself a zealous and pious teacher of religion,
I acted in the interest of reason, which always suffers, when certain objects are ex
could give no other answer than this :
plained and judged by a reference to other supposed laws than those of material nature --the only laws which we know in a determinate manner. It would be unfair to decry the latter philosopher, who endeavoured to harmonize his para doxical opinions with the interests of religion, and to under value an honest and reflecting man, because he finds himself it a loss the moment he has left the field of natural science. The same grace must be accorded to Hume, a man not less well-disposed, and quite as blameless in his moral character,
and who pushed his abstract speculations to an extreme length, because, as he rightly believed, the object of them lies en tirely beyond the bounds of natural science, and within the sphere of pure ideas.
What is to be done to provide against the danger which seems in the present case to menace the best interests of hu manity ? The course to be pursued in reference to this subject is a perfectly plain and natural one. Let each thinker pursue his own path ; if he shews talent, if he gives evidence of profound thought, in one word, if he shows that he pos sesses the power of reasoning, --reason is always the gainer. If you have recourse to other means, if you attempt to coerce reason, if you raise the cry of treason to humanity, if . you excite the feelings of the crowd, which can neither understand nor sympathise with such subtle speculations, --you will only
make yourselves ridiculous. For the question does not con cern the advantage or disadvantage which we are expected to reap from such inquiries ; the question is merely, how far reason can advance in the field of speculation, apart from all kinds of interest, and whether we may depend upon the exer tions of speculative reason, or must renounce all reliance on it. Instead of joining the combatants, it is your part to be a tranquil spectator of the struggle --a laborious struggle for the parties engaged, but attended, in its progress as well as in its result, with the most advantageous consequences for the interests of thought and knowledge. It is absurd to expect
? ? ? ? TIIE DISCIPLINE OF PUHE REASON. 455
to be enlightened by Reason, and at the same time to prescribe to her what side of the question she must adopt. Moreover, reason is sufficiently held in check by its own power, the limits imposed on it by its own nature are sufficient ; it is un necessary for you to place over it addition*! guards, as if its power were dangerous to the constitution of the intellectual state. In the dialectic of reason there is no victory gained, which needs in the least disturb your tranquillity.
The strife of dialectic is a necessity of reason, and we can not but wish that it had been conducted long ere this with that perfect freedom which ought to be its essential condition. In this case, we should have had at an earlier period a ma tured and profound criticism, which must have put an end to all dialectical disputes, by exposing the illusions and preju dices in which they originated. --
There is in human nature an unworthy propensity
pensity which, like everything that springs from nature, must in its final purpose be conducive to the good of humanity-- to conceal our real sentiments, and to give expression only to certain received opinions, which are regarded as at once safe and promotive of the common good. It is true, this ten dency, not only to conceal our real sentiments, but to profess those which may gain us favour in the eyes of society, has not only civilized, but, in a certain measure, moralized us ; as no one can break through the outward covering of re spectability, honour, and morality, and thus the seemingly- good examples which we see around us, form an excellent school for moral improvement, so long as our belief in their
remains unshaken. But this disposition to re present ourselves as better than we are, and to utter opinions which are not our own, can be nothing more than a kind of provisionary arrangement of nature to lead us from the rude ness of an uncivilised state, and to teach us how to assume at least the appearance and manner of the good we see. But when true principles have been developed, and have obtained b sure foundation in our habit of thought, this convention alism must be attacked with earnest vigour, otherwise it cor rupts the heart, and checks the growth of good dispositions with the mischievous weed of fair appearances.
I am sorry to remark the same tendency to misrepresenta tion and hypocrisy in the sphere of speculative discussion,
? genuineness
a pro
? ? ? 456 TRAJISCENDElfTAL DOCTRINE OF METHOD.
where there is less temptation to restrain the free expression of thought. For what can be more prejudicial to the interests of intelligence, than to falsify our real sentiments, to conceal the doubts which we feel in regard to our statements, or to maintain the validity of grounds of proof which we well know to be insufficient ? So long as mere personal vanity is the source of these unworthy artifices, --and this is generally the case in speculative discussions, which are mostly destitute of
practical interest, and are incapable of complete demonstra tion, --the vanity of the opposite party exaggerates as much on the other side ; and thus the result is the same, although it is not brought about so soon as if the dispute had been conducted in a sincere and upright spirit. But where the mass entertains the notion that the aim of certain snbtle
speculators is nothing less than to shake the very founda tions of public welfare and morality, -- it seems not only prudent, but even praiseworthy, to maintain the good cause by illusory arguments, rather than to give to our supposed opponents the advantage of lowering our declarations to the moderate tone of a merely practical conviction, and of com pelling us to confess our inability to attain to apodeictic cer tainty in speculative subjects. But we ought to reflect that there is nothing in the world more fatal to the maintenance of a good cause than deceit, misrepresentation, and falsehood. That the strictest laws of honesty should be observed in the discussion of a purely speculative subject, is the least require ment that can be made. If we could reckon with security
even upon bo little, the conflict of speculative reason regarding the important questions of God, immortality, and freedom, would have been either decided long ago, or would very soon be brought to a conclusion. But, in general, the uprightness of the defence stands in an inverse ratio to the goodness of the cause ; and perhaps more honesty and fairness are shown by those who deny, than by those who uphold these doc
trines.
I shall persuade myself, then, that I have readers who do
not wish to see a righteous cause defended by unfair argu ments. Such will now recognise the fact that, according to the principles of this Critique, if we consider not what but what ought to be the case, there can be really no polemic of pure reason. For how can two persons dispute about thing.
? ? ? a
is,
? THE DISCIPLINE OF POliE BEASO5. 457
the reality of which neither can present in actual or even in
possible experience ? Each adopts the plan of meditating on his idea for the purpose of drawing from the idea, if he can, what is more than the idea, that is, the reality of the object which it indicates. How shall they settle the dispute, since neither is able to make his assertions directly comprehensible and cer tain, but must restrict himself to attacking and confutiug those of his opponent? All statements enounced by pure reason transcend the conditions of possible experience, beyond the sphere of which we can discover no criterion of truth, while they are at the same time framed in accordance with the laws of the understanding, which are applicable only to experience ; and thus it is the fate of all such speculative dis cussions, that while the one party attacks the weaker side of his opponent, he infallibly lays open his own weaknesses.
The critique of pure reason may be regarded as the highest tribunal for all speculative disputes ; for it is not involved in these disputes, which have an immediate relation to certain ob jects and not to the laws of the mind, but is instituted for the purpose of determining the rights and limits of reason.
Without the control of criticism reason as were, in
state of nature, and can only establish its claims and assertions
? by war. Criticism, on the contrary, deciding all questions according to the fundamental laws of its own institution, secures to us the peace of law and order, and enables us to discuss all differences in the more tranquil manner of
legal victory, hollow armistice in the latter, by sentence, which, as strikes
process. In the former case, disputes are ended which both sides may claim, and which followed
at the root of all speculative differences, ensures to all con
cerned lasting peace. The endless disputes of dog matising reason compel us to look for some mode of arriving at settled decision critical investigation of reason itself; just as Hobbes maintains that the state of nature state of injustice and violence, and that we must leave and submit ourselves to the constraint of law, which indeed limits indi vidual freedom, but only that may consist with the freedom of others and with the common good of all.
This freedom will, among other things, permit of our openly stating the difficulties and doubts which we are ourselves un able to solve, without being decried on that accouut as tut*
? ? it
a
it
it it byby
is a
aaa
a
a
;
by a
is
is,
a
? 458 TBAKSCEXDEKTAL DOCTltlKE OT METHOD.
buleut and dangerous citizens. This privilege forms part of the native rights of human reason, which recognises no other judge than the universal reason of humanity ; and as this reason is the source of all progress and improvement, such a privilege is to be held sacred and inviolable. It is unwise, moreover, to denounce as dangerous, any bold assertions against, or rash attacks upon, an opinion which is held by the largest and most moral class of the community ; for that would be giving them an importance which they do not de serve. When I hear that the freedom of the will, the hope of a future life, and the existence of God have been over thrown by the arguments of some able writer, I feel a strong desire to read his book ; for I expect that he will add to my knowledge, and impart greater clearness and distinctness to my views by the argumentative power shown in his writings.
But I am perfectly certain, even before I have opened the book, that he has not succeeded in a single point, not because I believe I am in possession of irrefutable demonstrations of these important propositions, but because this transcendental critique, which has disclosed to me the power and the limits of pure reason, has fully convinced me that, as it is insuffi cient to establish the affirmative, it is as powerless, and even more so, to assure us of the truth of the negative answer to these questions. From what source does this free-thinker derive his knowledge that there for example, no Supreme
Being? This proposition lies out of the field of possible ex perience, and, therefore, beyond the limits of human cogni tion. But would not read at all the answer which the dog- mntical maintainer of the good cause makes to his opponent, because know well beforehand, that lie wdl merely attack the fallacious grounds of his adversary, without being able to establish his own assertions. Besides, a new illusory argu ment, in the construction of which talent and acuteness are shown, suggestive of new ideas and new trains of reasoning,
and in this respect the old and every-day sophistries are quite useless. Again, the dogmatical opponent of religion gives
? to criticism, and enables us to test and correct its principles, while there no occasion for anxiety in regard to the influence and results of his reasoning.