IMMANUEL KANT: Philosophical Books, Critiques & Essays. Immanuel Kant

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ to the thing; practically, when we view what by liberty should be in it.

      4. Höhere Mechanik, p. 354.

      5. Simultaneous facts are not such for the reason that they do not succeed each other. Removing succession, to be sure, a conjunction is withdrawn which existed by the time-series. Yet thence does not originate another true relation, the conjunction of all things in the same moment. For simultaneous things are joined in the same moment of time exactly as successive things are joined in different moments. Hence, though time is of but one dimension, still the ubiquity of time, to speak with Newton, by which all things sensuously thinkable are some time, adds to the quantity of actual things another dimension, inasmuch as they hang, so to speak, on the same point of time. For designating time by a straight line produced infinitely, and the simultaneous things at any point of time whatever by lines applied in succession, the surface thus generated will represent the phenomenal world, both as to substance and accidents.

      6. As the necessity of conceiving space as a continuous quantity is easy to demonstrate, I pass it by. It is a consequence from this that the simple in space is not a part, but a limit. A limit generally, is that in a continuous quantity which contains the limited portion. Space not the limit of another is a solid. The limit of a solid is a surface, of a surface the line, of a line the point; hence there are three kinds of limits in space, as there are three dimensions. Two of these limits, the surface and the line, are themselves spaces. The concept of limit enters into no quantity besides time and space.

      7. The moments of time do not appear to follow one another, since if they did another time would have to be premised for the succession of moments; but by sensuous intuition the actual things appear to descend, as it were, through a continuous series of moments.

      8. The use of this criterion is fruitful and easy in distinguishing principles which enunciate laws of sensuous cognition only from those prescribing besides something concerning the objects themselves. If the predicate be an intellectual concept, its reference to the subject of the judgment, though this subject be thought of as an object of sense, always denotes a mark belonging to the object itself. If the predicate be a sensuous concept, then, since the laws of sensuous cognition are not conditions of the possibility of things themselves, it is not valid as to the subject of the judgment conceived intellectually, and hence it cannot be enounced objectively. Thus in the common axiom whatever exists is somewhere, as the predicate contains conditions of sensuous knowledge it cannot be enounced as to the subject of the judgment, namely, anything existing, generally; hence this formula as an objective rule is false. But converting the proposition, so as to make the predicate an intellectual concept, it becomes perfectly true; thus: whatever is somewhere, exists.

      9. Space and time are conceived as comprehending in them all things in any way offered to the senses. Hence, according to the laws of the human mind, the intuition of nothing is given except as contained in space and time. To this prejudice another may be compared which is not properly a spurious axiom but a play of the fancy, and which may be set forth in the general formula: In whatever exists are space and time, that is to say, every substance is extended and continuously changed. But though people of dense conception are bound firmly by this law of imagination, even they see readily that it pertains only to the efforts of fancy, shadowing forth to itself the appearance of things, not to the conditions of existence.

      The Three Critiques

       Table of Contents

      THE CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON

       Table of Contents

Table of Contents

       Preface to the First Edition, 1781

       Preface to the Second Edition, 1787

       Introduction

       I. Of the difference between Pure and Empirical Knowledge

       II. The Human Intellect, even in an Unphilosophical State, is in Possession of Certain Cognitions “a priori”

       III. Philosophy stands in need of a Science which shall Determine the Possibility, Principles, and Extent of Human Knowledge “a priori”

       IV. Of the Difference Between Analytical and Synthetical Judgements

       V. In all Theoretical Sciences of Reason, Synthetical Judgements “a priori” are contained as Principles

       VI. The Universal Problem of Pure Reason

       VII. Idea and Division of a Particular Science, under the Name of a Critique of Pure Reason

       I. Transcendental Doctrine of Elements

       First Part. Transcendental Aesthetic

       Section I. Of Space

       Section II. Of Time

       Second Part. Transcendental Logic

       Introduction. Idea of a Transcendental Logic

       I. Of Logic in General

       II. Of Transcendental Logic

       III. Of the Division of General Logic into Analytic and Dialectic

       IV. Of the Division of Transcendental СКАЧАТЬ