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！
of human cognition；〃 this definition did not signalize a peculiarity
in kind； but only a difference in degree； these first principles
were thus declared to be more general than others； but no criterion of
distinction from empirical principles was given。 Of these some are
more general； and therefore higher； than others； and… as we cannot
distinguish what is completely a priori from that which is known to be
a posteriori… where shall we draw the line which is to separate the
higher and so…called first principles； from the lower and
subordinate principles of cognition？ What would be said if we were
asked to be satisfied with a division of the epochs of the world
into the earlier centuries and those following them？ 〃Does the
fifth； or the tenth century belong to the earlier centuries？〃 it would
be asked。 In the same way I ask： Does the conception of extension
belong to metaphysics？ You answer； 〃Yes。〃 Well； that of body too？
〃Yes。〃 And that of a fluid body？ You stop； you are unprepared to admit
this； for if you do； everything will belong to metaphysics。 From
this it is evident that the mere degree of subordination… of the
particular to the general… cannot determine the limits of a science；
and that； in the present case； we must expect to find a difference
in the conceptions of metaphysics both in kind and in origin。 The
fundamental idea of metaphysics was obscured on another side by the
fact that this kind of a priori cognition showed a certain
similarity in character with the science of mathematics。 Both have the
property in common of possessing an a priori origin； but； in the
one； our knowledge is based upon conceptions； in the other； on the
construction of conceptions。 Thus a decided dissimilarity between
philosophical and mathematical cognition comes out… a dissimilarity
which was always felt； but which could not be made distinct for want
of an insight into the criteria of the difference。 And thus it
happened that； as philosophers themselves failed in the proper
development of the idea of their science； the elaboration of the
science could not proceed with a definite aim； or under trustworthy
guidance。 Thus； too； philosophers； ignorant of the path they ought
to pursue and always disputing with each other regarding the
discoveries which each asserted he had made； brought their science
into disrepute with the rest of the world； and finally； even among
themselves。
All pure a priori cognition forms； therefore； in view of the
peculiar faculty which originates it； a peculiar and distinct unity；
and metaphysic is the term applied to the philosophy which attempts to
represent that cognition in this systematic unity。 The speculative
part of metaphysic； which has especially appropriated this
appellation… that which we have called the metaphysic of nature… and
which considers everything； as it is （not as it ought to be）； by means
of a priori conceptions； is divided in the following manner。
Metaphysic； in the more limited acceptation of the term； consists of
two parts… transcendental philosophy and the physiology of pure
reason。 The former presents the system of all the conceptions and
principles belonging to the understanding and the reason； and which
relate to objects in general； but not to any particular given
objects （Ontologia）； the latter has nature for its subject…matter；
that is； the sum of given objects… whether given to the senses； or； if
we will； to some other kind of intuition… and is accordingly
physiology； although only rationalis。 But the use of the faculty of
reason in this rational mode of regarding nature is either physical or
hyperphysical； or； more properly speaking； immanent or transcendent。
The former relates to nature； in so far as our knowledge regarding
it may be applied in experience （in concreto）； the latter to that
connection of the objects of experience； which transcends all
experience。 Transcendent physiology has； again； an internal and an
external connection with its object； both； however； transcending
possible experience； the former is the physiology of nature as a
whole； or transcendental cognition of the world； the latter of the
connection of the whole of nature with a being above nature； or
transcendental cognition of God。
Immanent physiology； on the contrary； considers nature as the sum of
all sensuous objects； consequently； as it is presented to us… but
still according to a priori conditions； for it is under these alone
that nature can be presented to our minds at all。 The objects of
immanent physiology are of two kinds： 1。 Those of the external senses；
or corporeal nature； 2。 The object of the internal sense； the soul；
or； in accordance with our fundamental conceptions of it； thinking
nature。 The metaphysics of corporeal nature is called physics； but； as
it must contain only the principles of an a priori cognition of
nature； we must term it rational physics。 The metaphysics of
thinking nature is called psychology； and for the same reason is to be
regarded as merely the rational cognition of the soul。
Thus the whole system of metaphysics consists of four principal
parts： 1。 Ontology； 2。 Rational Physiology； 3。 Rational cosmology； and
4。 Rational theology。 The second part… that of the rational doctrine
of nature… may be subdivided into two； physica rationalis* and
psychologia rationalis。
*It must not be supposed that I mean by this appellation what is
generally called physica general is； and which is rather mathematics
than a philosophy of nature。 For the metaphysic of nature is
completely different from mathematics； nor is it so rich in results；
although it is of great importance as a critical test of the
application of pure understanding…cognition to nature。 For want of its
guidance； even mathematicians； adopting certain common notions…
which are； in fact； metaphysical… have unconsciously crowded their
theories of nature with hypotheses； the fallacy of which becomes
evident upon the application of the principles of this metaphysic；
without detriment； however； to the employment of mathematics in this
sphere of cognition。
The fundamental idea of a philosophy of pure reason of necessity
dictates this division； it is； therefore； architectonical… in
accordance with the highest aims of reason； and not merely
technical； or according to certain accidentally…observed
similarities existing between the different parts of the whole
science。 For this reason； also； is the division immutable and of
legislative authority。 But the reader may observe in it a few points
to which he ought to demur； and which may weaken his conviction of its
truth and legitimacy。
In the first place； how can I desire an a priori cognition or
metaphysic of objects； in so far as they are given a posteriori？ and
how is it possible to cognize the nature of things according to a
priori principles； and to attain to a rational physiology？ The
answer is this。 We take from experience nothing more than is requisite
to present us with an object （in general） of the external or of the
internal sense； in the former case； by the mere conception of matter
（impenetrable and inanimate extension）； in the latter； by the
conception of a thinking being… given in the internal empirical
representation； I think。 As to the rest； we must not employ in our
metaphysic of these objects any empirical principles （which add to the
content of our conceptions by means of experience）； for the purpose of
forming by their help any judgements respecting these objects。
Secondly； what place shall we assign to empirical psychology；
which has always been considered a part of metaphysics； and from which
in our time such important philosophical results have been expected；
after the hope of constructing an a priori system of knowledge had
been abandoned？ I answer： It must be placed by the side of empirical
physics or physics proper； that is； must be regarded as forming a part
of applied philosophy； the a priori principles of which are
contained in pure philosophy； which is therefore connected； although
it must not be confounded； with psychology。 Empirical psychology
must therefore be banished from the sphere of metaphysics； and is
indeed excluded by the very idea of that science。 In conformity；
however； with scholastic usage； we must permit it to occupy a place in
metaphysics… but only as an appendix to it。 We adopt this course
from motives of economy； as psychology is not as yet full enough to
occupy our attention as an independent study； while it is； at the same
time； of too great importance to be entirely excluded or placed
where it has still less affinity than it has with the subject of
metaphysics。 It is a stranger who has been long a guest； and we make
it welcome to stay； until it can take up a more suitable abode in a
complete system of anthropology… the pendant to empirical physics。
The above is the general idea of metaphysics； which； as more was
expected fro