嗔秤戻幣�哉膵�云利匈嬉蝕湊蛸賜�塋床四衲���萩晦編報炎嘔囚^泡仟 ̄云利匈��
shorter logic-及24何蛍
酔楯荷恬: 梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ○ 賜 ★ 辛酔堀貧和鍬匈 梓囚徒貧議 Enter 囚辛指欺云慕朕村匈 梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ● 辛指欺云匈競何! 泌惚云慕短嗤堋響頼���誅卒亮茂�俊彭堋響��辛聞喘貧圭 "辺茄欺厘議箝誓匂" 孔嬬 才 "紗秘慕禰" 孔嬬��
cause which exists and acts subjectively�察�i。e。 as our idea only�此�and teleology is
accordingly explained to be only a principle of criticism�察�purely personal to our
understanding。
After the Critical philosophy had settled that Reason can know phenomena only��
there would still have been an option for animated nature between two equally
subjective modes of thought。 Even according to Kant's own exposition�察�there
would have been an obligation to admit�察�in the case of natural productions�察�a
knowledge not confined to the categories of quality�察�cause and effect��
composition�察�constituents�察�and so on。 The principle of inward adaptation or
design�察�had it been kept to and carried out in scientific application�察�would have led
to a different and a higher method of observing nature。
′ 59
If we adopt this principle�察�the Idea�察�when all limitations were removed from it��
would appear as follows。 The universality moulded by Reason�察�and described as
the absolute and final end or the Good�察�would be realised in the world�察�and
realised moreover by means of a third thing�察�the power which proposes this End
as well as realises it that is�察�God。 Thus in him�察�who is the absolute truth�察�those
oppositions of universal and individual�察�subjective and objective�察�are solved and
explained to be neither self´subsistent nor true。
′ 60
But Good which is thus put forward as the final cause of the world has been
already described as only our good�察�the moral law of our Practical Reason。 This
being so�察�the unity in question goes no further than make the state of the world
and the course of its events harmonise with our moral standards。 Besides�察�even
with this limitation�察�the final cause�察�or Good�察�is a vague abstraction�察�and the same
vagueness attaches to what is to be Duty。 But�察�further�察�this harmony is met by the
revival and reassertion of the antithesis�察�which it by its own principle had nullified。
The harmony is then described as merely subjective�察�something which merely
ought to be�察�and which at the same time is not real a mere article of faith��
possessing a subjective certainty�察�but without truth�察�or that objectivity which is
proper to the Idea。 This contradiction may seem to be disguised by adjourning the
realisation of the Idea to a future�察�to a time when the Idea will also be。 But a
sensuous condition like time is the reverse of a reconciliation of the discrepancy��
and an infinite progression which is the corresponding image adopted by the
understanding on the very face of it only repeats and re´enacts the contradiction。
A general remark may still be offered on the result to which the Critical
philosophy led as to the nature of knowledge�察�a result which has grown one of the
current 'idols' or axiomatic beliefs of the day。 In every dualistic system�察�and
especially in that of Kant�察�the fundamental defect makes itself visible in the
inconsistency of unifying at one moment what a moment before had been
explained to be independent and therefore incapable of unification。 And then�察�at
the very moment after unification has been alleged to be the truth�察�we suddenly
come upon the doctrine that the two elements�察�which�察�in their true status of
unification�察�had been refused all independent subsistence�察�are only true and actual
in their state of separation。 Philosophising of this kind wants the little penetration
needed to discover�察�that this shuffling only evidences how unsatisfactory each one
of the two terms is。 Arid it fails simply because it is incapable of bringing two
thoughts together。 ��And in point of form there are never more than two。�� It argues
an utter want of consistency to say�察�on the one hand�察�that the understanding only
knows phenomena�察�and�察�on the other�察�assert the absolute character of this
knowledge�察�by such statements as 'Cognition can go no further'�察�'Here is the
natural and absolute limit of human knowledge。' But 'natural' is the wrong word
here。 The things of nature are limited and are natural things only to such extent as
they are not aware of their universal limit�察�or to such extent as their mode or
quality is a limit from our point of view�察�and not from their own。 No one knows��
or even feels�察�that anything is a limit or defect�察�until he is at the same time above
and beyond it。 Living beings�察�for example�察�possess the privilege of pain which is
denied to the inanimate�此�even with living beings�察�a single mode or quality passes
into the feeling of a negative。 For living beings as such possess within them a
universal vitality�察�which overpasses and includes the single mode�察�and thus�察�as
they maintain themselves in the negative of themselves�察�they feel the
contradiction to exist within them。 But the contradiction is within them only in so
far as one and the same subject includes both the universality of their sense of
life�察�and the individual mode which is in negation with it。 This illustration will
show how a limit or imperfection in knowledge comes to be termed a limit or
imperfection�察�only when it is compared with the actually present Idea of the
universal�察�of a total and perfect。 A very little consideration might show that to call
a thing finite or limited proves by implication the very presence of the infinite and
unlimited�察�and that our knowledge of a limit can only be when the unlimited is on
this side in consciousness。
The result however of Kant's view of cognition suggests a second remark。 The
philosophy of Kant could have no influence on the method of the sciences。 It
leaves the categories and method of ordinary knowledge quite unmolested。
Occasionally�察�it may be�察�in the first sections of a scientific work of that period�察�we
find propositions borrowed from the Kantian philosophy�察�but the course of the
treatise renders it apparent that these propositions were superfluous decoration��
and that the few first pages might have been omitted without producing the least
change in the empirical contents。
We may next institute a comparison of Kant with the metaphysics of the
empirical school。 Natural plain Empiricism�察�though it unquestionably insists most
upon sensuous perception�察�still allows a supersensible world or spiritual reality��
whatever may be its structure and constitution�察�and whether derived from
intellect�察�or from imagination�察�etc。 So far as form goes�察�the facts of this
supersensible world rest on the authority of mind�察�in the same way as the other
facts embraced in empirical knowledge rest on the authority of external
perception。 But when Empiricism becomes reflective and logically consistent�察�it
turns its arms against this dualism in the ultimate and highest species of fact�察�it
denies the independence of the thinking principle and of a spiritual world which
develops itself in thought。 Materialism or Naturalism�察�therefore�察�is the consistent
and thoroughgoing system of Empiricism。 In direct opposition to such an
Empiricism�察�Kant asserts the principle of thought and freedom�察�and attaches
himself to the first mentioned form of empirical doctrine�察�the general principles of
which he never departed from。 There is a dualism in his philosophy also。 On one
side stands the world of sensation�察�and of the understanding which reflects upon
it。 This world�察�it is true�察�he alleges to be a world of appearances。 But that is only a
title or formal description�察�for the source�察�the facts�察�and the modes of observation
continue quite the same as in Empiricism。 On the other side and independent
stands a self´apprehending thought�察�the principle of freedom�察�which Kant has in
common with ordinary and bygone metaphysic�察�but emptied of all that it held��
and without his being able to infuse into it anything new。 For�察�in the Critical
doctrine�察�thought�察�or�察�as it is there called�察�Reason�察�is divested of every specific
form�察�and thus bereft of all authority。 The main effect of the Kantian philosophy
has been to revive the consciousness of Reason�察�or the absolute inwardness of
thought。 Its abstractness indeed prevented that inwardness from developing into
anything�察�or from originating any special forms�察�whether cognitive principles or
moral laws�察�but nevertheless it absolutely refused to accept or indulge anything
possessing the character of an externality。 Henceforth the principle of the
independence of Reason�察�or of its absolute self´subsistence�察�is made a general
principle of philosophy�察�as well as a foregone conclusion of the time。
′60n
��1�� The Critical philosophy has one great negative merit。 It has brought home the conviction that
the categories of understanding are finite in their range�察�and that any cognitive process confined
within their pale falls short of the truth。 But Kant had only a sight of half the truth。 He explained the
finite nature of the categories to mean that they were subjective only�察�valid only for our thought��
from which the thing´in´itself was divided by an impassable gulf。 In fact�察�however�察�it is not because
they are subjective that the categories are finite�此�they are finite by their very nature�察�and it is on their
own selves that it is requisite to exhibit their finitude。 Kant however holds that what we think is
false�察�because it is we who think it。 A further deficiency in the system is that it gives only a
historical description of thought�察�and a mere enumeration of the factors of consciousness。 The
enumeration is in the main correct�此�but not a word touches upon the necessity of what is thus
empirically colligated。 The observations made on the various stages of consciousness culminant in
the summary statement that the content of all we are acquainted with is only an appearance。 And
as it is true at least that all finite thinking is concerned with appearances�察�so far the conclusion is
justified。 This stage of 'appearance' however ´ the phenomenal world ´ is not the terminus of
thought�此�there is another and a higher region。 But that region was to the Kantian philosophy an
inaccessible 'other world'。
��2�� After all it was only formally that the Kantian system established the principle that thought is
spontaneous and self´determining。 Into details of the manner and the extent of this
self´determinatio
酔楯荷恬: 梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ○ 賜 ★ 辛酔堀貧和鍬匈 梓囚徒貧議 Enter 囚辛指欺云慕朕村匈 梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ● 辛指欺云匈競何!
梁椣戻幣�� 梁心弌傍議揖扮窟燕得胎��傍竃徭失議心隈才凪万弌誌育断蛍�輌臆惨軼僑〃�燕慕得珊辛參資誼持蛍才将刮襲潜��範寔亟圻幹慕得 瓜寡追葎娼得辛參資誼寄楚署衛、持蛍才将刮襲潜填��