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！
the design of nature？ In this view of the case； reason would be
proceeding in direct opposition to her own destination； by setting
as an aim an idea which entirely conflicts with the procedure and
arrangement of nature。 Neither can we assert that reason has
previously inferred this unity from the contingent nature of
phenomena。 For the law of reason which requires us to seek for this
unity is a necessary law； inasmuch as without it we should not possess
a faculty of reason； nor without reason a consistent and
self…accordant mode of employing the understanding； nor； in the
absence of this； any proper and sufficient criterion of empirical
truth。 In relation to this criterion； therefore； we must suppose the
idea of the systematic unity of nature to possess objective validity
and necessity。
We find this transcendental presupposition lurking in different
forms in the principles of philosophers； although they have neither
recognized it nor confessed to themselves its presence。 That the
diversities of individual things do not exclude identity of species；
that the various species must be considered as merely different
determinations of a few genera； and these again as divisions of
still higher races； and so on… that； accordingly； a certain systematic
unity of all possible empirical conceptions； in so far as they can
be deduced from higher and more general conceptions； must be sought
for； is a scholastic maxim or logical principle； without which
reason could not be employed by us。 For we can infer the particular
from the general； only in so far as general properties of things
constitute the foundation upon which the particular rest。
That the same unity exists in nature is presupposed by
philosophers in the well…known scholastic maxim； which forbids us
unnecessarily to augment the number of entities or principles （entia
praeter necessitatem non esse multiplicanda）。 This maxim asserts
that nature herself assists in the establishment of this unity of
reason； and that the seemingly infinite diversity of phenomena
should not deter us from the expectation of discovering beneath this
diversity a unity of fundamental properties； of which the aforesaid
variety is but a more or less determined form。 This unity； although
a mere idea； thinkers have found it necessary rather to moderate the
desire than to encourage it。 It was considered a great step when
chemists were able to reduce all salts to two main genera… acids and
alkalis； and they regard this difference as itself a mere variety；
or different manifestation of one and the same fundamental material。
The different kinds of earths （stones and even metals） chemists have
endeavoured to reduce to three； and afterwards to two； but still；
not content with this advance； they cannot but think that behind these
diversities there lurks but one genus… nay； that even salts and earths
have a common principle。 It might be conjectured that this is merely
an economical plan of reason； for the purpose of sparing itself
trouble； and an attempt of a purely hypothetical character； which；
when successful； gives an appearance of probability to the principle
of explanation employed by the reason。 But a selfish purpose of this
kind is easily to be distinguished from the idea； according to which
every one presupposes that this unity is in accordance with the laws
of nature； and that reason does not in this case request； but
requires； although we are quite unable to determine the proper
limits of this unity。
If the diversity existing in phenomena… a diversity not of form （for
in this they may be similar） but of content… were so great that the
subtlest human reason could never by comparison discover in them the
least similarity （which is not impossible）； in this case the logical
law of genera would be without foundation； the conception of a
genus； nay； all general conceptions would be impossible； and the
faculty of the understanding； the exercise of which is restricted to
the world of conceptions； could not exist。 The logical principle of
genera； accordingly； if it is to be applied to nature （by which I mean
objects presented to our senses）； presupposes a transcendental
principle。 In accordance with this principle； homogeneity is
necessarily presupposed in the variety of phenomena （although we are
unable to determine a priori the degree of this homogeneity）；
because without it no empirical conceptions； and consequently no
experience； would be possible。
The logical principle of genera； which demands identity in
phenomena； is balanced by another principle… that of species； which
requires variety and diversity in things； notwithstanding their
accordance in the same genus； and directs the understanding to
attend to the one no less than to the other。 This principle （of the
faculty of distinction） acts as a check upon the reason and reason
exhibits in this respect a double and conflicting interest… on the one
hand； the interest in the extent （the interest of generality） in
relation to genera； on the other； that of the content （the interest of
individuality） in relation to the variety of species。 In the former
case； the understanding cogitates more under its conceptions； in the
latter it cogitates more in them。 This distinction manifests itself
likewise in the habits of thought peculiar to natural philosophers；
some of whom… the remarkably speculative heads… may be said to be
hostile to heterogeneity in phenomena； and have their eyes always
fixed on the unity of genera； while others… with a strong empirical
tendency… aim unceasingly at the analysis of phenomena； and almost
destroy in us the hope of ever being able to estimate the character of
these according to general principles。
The latter mode of thought is evidently based upon a logical
principle； the aim of which is the systematic completeness of all
cognitions。 This principle authorizes me； beginning at the genus； to
descend to the various and diverse contained under it； and in this way
extension； as in the former case unity； is assured to the system。
For if we merely examine the sphere of the conception which
indicates a genus； we cannot discover how far it is possible to
proceed in the division of that sphere； just as it is impossible； from
the consideration of the space occupied by matter； to determine how
far we can proceed in the division of it。 Hence every genus must
contain different species； and these again different subspecies； and
as each of the latter must itself contain a sphere （must be of a
certain extent； as a conceptus communis）； reason demands that no
species or sub…species is to be considered as the lowest possible。 For
a species or sub…species； being always a conception； which contains
only what is common to a number of different things； does not
completely determine any individual thing； or relate immediately to
it； and must consequently contain other conceptions； that is； other
sub…species under it。 This law of specification may be thus expressed：
entium varietates non temere sunt minuendae。
But it is easy to see that this logical law would likewise be
without sense or application； were it not based upon a
transcendental law of specification； which certainly does not
require that the differences existing phenomena should be infinite
in number； for the logical principle； which merely maintains the
indeterminateness of the logical sphere of a conception； in relation
to its possible division； does not authorize this statement； while
it does impose upon the understanding the duty of searching for
subspecies to every species； and minor differences in every
difference。 For； were there no lower conceptions； neither could
there be any higher。 Now the understanding cognizes only by means of
conceptions； consequently； how far soever it may proceed in
division； never by mere intuition； but always by lower and lower
conceptions。 The cognition of phenomena in their complete
determination （which is possible only by means of the understanding）
requires an unceasingly continued specification of conceptions； and
a progression to ever smaller differences； of which abstraction bad
been made in the conception of the species； and still more in that
of the genus。
This law of specification cannot be deduced from experience； it
can never present us with a principle of so universal an
application。 Empirical specification very soon stops in its
distinction of diversities； and requires the guidance of the
transcendental law； as a principle of the reason… a law which
imposes on us the necessity of never ceasing in our search for
differences； even although these may not present themselves to the
senses。 That absorbent earths are of different kinds could only be
discovered by obeying the anticipatory law of reason； which imposes
upon the understanding the task of discovering the differences
existing between these earths； and supposes that nature is richer in
substances