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！
connection in itself vain； chimerical； and untenable in presence of
reason； and to which no object can ever correspond。 In this way was
empiricism first introduced as the sole source of principles； as far
as all knowledge of the existence of things is concerned
（mathematics therefore remaining excepted）； and with empiricism the
most thorough scepticism； even with regard to the whole science of
nature（ as philosophy）。 For on such principles we can never conclude
from given attributes of things as existing to a consequence （for this
would require the notion of cause； which involves the necessity of
such a connection）； we can only； guided by imagination； expect similar
cases… an expectation which is never certain； however of ten it has
been fulfilled。 Of no event could we say： a certain thing must have
preceded it； on which it necessarily followed； that is； it must have a
cause； and therefore； however frequent the cases we have known in
which there was such an antecedent； so that a rule could be derived
from them； yet we never could suppose it as always and necessarily
so happening； we should； therefore； be obliged to leave its share to
blind chance； with which all use of reason es to an end； and this
firmly establishes scepticism in reference to arguments ascending from
effects to causes and makes it impregnable。
Mathematics escaped well； so far； because Hume thought that its
propositions were analytical； that is； proceeded from one property
to another； by virtue of identity and； consequently； according to
the principle of contradiction。 This； however； is not the case； since；
on the contrary； they are synthetical； and although geometry； for
example； has not to do with the existence of things； but only with
their a priori properties in a possible intuition； yet it proceeds
just as in the case of the causal notion； from one property （A） to
another wholly distinct （B）； as necessarily connected with the former。
Nevertheless； mathematical science； so highly vaunted for its
apodeictic certainty； must at last fall under this empiricism for
the same reason for which Hume put custom in the place of objective
necessity in the notion of cause and； in spite of all its pride；
must consent to lower its bold pretension of claiming assent a
priori and depend for assent to the universality of its propositions
on the kindness of observers； who； when called as witnesses； would
surely not hesitate to admit that what the geometer propounds as a
theorem they have always perceived to be the fact； and；
consequently； although it be not necessarily true； yet they would
permit us to expect it to be true in the future。 In this manner Hume's
empiricism leads inevitably to scepticism； even with regard to
mathematics； and consequently in every scientific theoretical use of
reason （for this belongs either to philosophy or mathematics）。 Whether
with such a terrible overthrow of the chief branches of knowledge；
mon reason will escape better； and will not rather bee
irrecoverably involved in this destruction of all knowledge； so that
from the same principles a universal scepticism should follow
（affecting； indeed； only the learned）； this I will leave everyone to
judge for himself。
As regards my own labours in the critical examination of pure
reason； which were occasioned by Hume's sceptical teaching； but went
much further and embraced the whole field of pure theoretical reason
in its synthetic use and； consequently； the field of what is called
metaphysics in general； I proceeded in the following manner with
respect to the doubts raised by the Scottish philosopher touching
the notion of causality。 If Hume took the objects of experience for
things in themselves （as is almost always done）； he was quite right in
declaring the notion of cause to be a deception and false illusion；
for as to things in themselves； and their attributes as such； it is
impossible to see why because A is given； B； which is different；
must necessarily be also given； and therefore he could by no means
admit such an a priori knowledge of things in themselves。 Still less
could this acute writer allow an empirical origin of this concept；
since this is directly contradictory to the necessity of connection
which constitutes the essence of the notion of causality； hence the
notion was proscribed； and in its place was put custom in the
observation of the course of perceptions。
It resulted； however； from my inquiries； that the objects with which
we have to do in experience are by no means things in themselves；
but merely phenomena； and that although in the case of things in
themselves it is impossible to see how； if A is supposed； it should be
contradictory that B； which is quite different from A； should not also
be supposed （i。e。； to see the necessity of the connection between A as
cause and B as effect）； yet it can very well be conceived that； as
phenomena； they may be necessarily connected in one experience in a
certain way （e。g。； with regard to time…relations）； so that they
could not be separated without contradicting that connection； by means
of which this experience is possible in which they are objects and
in which alone they are cognisable by us。 And so it was found to be in
fact； so that I was able not only to prove the objective reality of
the concept of cause in regard to objects of experience； but also to
deduce it as an a priori concept by reason of the necessity of the
connection it implied； that is； to show the possibility of its
origin from pure understanding without any empirical sources； and
thus； after removing the source of empiricism； I was able also to
overthrow the inevitable consequence of this； namely； scepticism；
first with regard to physical science； and then with regard to
mathematics （in which empiricism has just the same grounds）； both
being sciences which have reference to objects of possible experience；
herewith overthrowing the thorough doubt of whatever theoretic
reason professes to discern。
But how is it with the application of this category of causality
（and all the others； for without them there can be no knowledge of
anything existing） to things which are not objec